2013 (10) TMI 1252 - HC - Central Excise

Activity Manufacture OR Not purchase of duty paid film - process of lamination or metallization - Passing of Cenvat Credit on Inputs - Revenue was of the view that the respondents were not engaged in manufacture and therefore could not have passed Cenvat credit on inputs to the purchasers of the printed laminated/metalized material Held that - The Tribunal has referred to the process of production adopted by the respondent - The respondent first print bare or metalized polyester film purchased from the market i.e. the inputs - Printed films were laminated either in two layers or three layers with the help of adhesive or another chemical - After referring to the process adopted by the respondent, the Tribunal has held that this would be covered by the definition of manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - The process actually undertaken, as recorded by the Tribunal, is not disputed - facts found relating to the process undertaken - There was no substantial question of law arises for consideration - Perhaps the appellant should be satisfied with the reasoning Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing and re-filing of appeal, Manufacturing process determination, Applicability of Supreme Court judgment in Central Excise cases.

Delay in filing and re-filing of appeal:
The judgment addresses a delay of 158 days in filing and 112 days in re-filing the appeal. The court decides to examine the contentions and issues raised by the appellant before issuing notice on the applications for condonation of delay. Ultimately, the court dismisses the applications and the appeal due to the lack of substantial questions of law.

Manufacturing process determination:
The appellant contended that the respondent, a manufacturer of laminated/metalized printed packaging material, could not have passed Cenvat credit on inputs to purchasers as they were not engaged in manufacturing. The appellant raised a demand with interest and penalty based on this contention. The Tribunal, after considering the process adopted by the respondent, held that it would be covered by the definition of manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal relied on a Supreme Court judgment in a similar case to support its decision.

Applicability of Supreme Court judgment in Central Excise cases:
The judgment discusses the applicability of a Supreme Court judgment in a Central Excise case involving the manufacturing process. The Tribunal distinguished the Supreme Court's decision and emphasized that the burden is on the department to prove the existence of a new and distinct product through a manufacturing process. The Tribunal highlighted that the judgment cannot be applied universally and must be considered based on the specific facts of each case. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not adequately examine the manufacturing process, leading to the decision in favor of the respondent.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal due to the lack of substantial questions of law, upheld the Tribunal's decision regarding the manufacturing process determination, and emphasized the need to consider the specific facts of each case when applying legal precedents.