2017 (4) TMI 375 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacture - process of lamination/printing/slitting of jumbo roles into smaller rolls - case of respondent is that that no distinct, identifiable commodity emerges out of the process undertaken by the respondent, and thus, the activity undertaken is outside the scope and purview of the definition of manufacture - Held that - the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide Para 11 in the impugned order has summarized various judicial pronouncements to hold that the process undertaken by the respondent does not amount to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f) of the CEA, 1944 - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the process of lamination/printing/slitting of jumbo roles into smaller rolls amounts to manufacture for the purpose of levy of Central Excise duty.

Analysis:
The appeal was directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi, where the Revenue contended that the process undertaken by the respondent amounts to manufacture, which the Commissioner had not properly analyzed. The Revenue relied on various judgments, including the Hon’ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Kores India Ltd. and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court's decision in the case of Commissioner v. Paper Products Ltd., to support their argument. On the other hand, the respondent's Advocate argued that no distinct, identifiable commodity emerges from the process, and thus, it falls outside the scope of the definition of manufacture for Central Excise duty levy purposes. The respondent's Advocate also cited the Hon’ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Metlex India Pvt. Ltd. to support this position.

Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal noted that the Commissioner had concluded that the process undertaken by the respondent did not amount to manufacture as per Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal further observed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Metlex India Pvt. Ltd. established that no new and distinct product emerges after lamination, and the product remains the same. The Tribunal distinguished the judgments relied on by the Revenue, stating that those cases involved the manufacture of different products, unlike the present case where the respondent was engaged in printing, laminating, and slitting of films not connected to the manufacture of packing pouches. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Commissioner's order and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that the process undertaken by the respondent did not amount to manufacture as defined in the Central Excise Act, based on the lack of emergence of a distinct product and the specific nature of the activities carried out by the respondent.