2008 (10) TMI 7 - SC - Central Excise

Whether cutting and slitting of steel sheets of polyester films used for lamination purposes amounts to manufacture exigibility - Circular no. 584/21/2001 dated 7-9-01 took the view that the processes in question amounts to manufacture but subsequent Circular no. 811/8/2005 dated 2-3-05 withdraws the earlier Circular dated7-9-01 hence there is no merit in contention of revenue that process amounts to manufacture Board s circular is binding on revenue revenue s appeal dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether cutting and slitting of steel sheets of polyester films used for lamination purposes amounts to manufacture?

Analysis:
The main issue in this bunch of Civil Appeals is whether the cutting and slitting of steel sheets of polyester films used for lamination purposes constitute manufacturing. The central question is not about classification but about exigibility.

The Circular dated 7th September, 2001, issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, addressed the issue of whether slitting of HR/CR coils of iron and steel sheets into strips would amount to manufacture. The Circular presented two viewpoints: one suggesting that a change in classification resulting in a new product with distinct characteristics would constitute manufacture, while the other viewpoint argued that mere slitting does not create new products with distinct identities.

The Delhi High Court initially held that the processes in question did not amount to manufacture, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court. Subsequently, the Central Board of Excise and Customs issued a later Circular on 2nd March, 2005, withdrawing the Circular dated 7th September, 2001, and accepting the judgment of the Delhi High Court. The later Circular clarified that cutting and slitting of steel sheets and polyester films used for lamination purposes do not amount to manufacture.

The Department argued that die-punching the sheets after slitting amounted to manufacture, but the Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the issue pertained to the period up to 2001 when the Circular dated 7th September, 2001 was in effect. The Court noted that the Circular was based on the interpretation of tariff items rather than the entire process undertaken by the assessees. As the subsequent Circular dated 2nd March, 2005 had withdrawn the earlier Circular, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's judgment, leading to the dismissal of the Civil Appeals.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified that cutting and slitting of steel sheets and polyester films used for lamination purposes do not amount to manufacture, as per the Circular dated 2nd March, 2005, which superseded the earlier Circular and was binding on the Department.