2017 (8) TMI 993 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacture - job-work - appellant has given the broken glass/cullets to the job worker to abstract silver sludge from that cullets - Held that - the silver sludge has not been manufactured by the appellant but by the job workers, therefore the duty is not payable by the appellant. Admittedly, when the appellant has not done any activity of manufacture of silver sludge, the appellant is not liable to pay duty - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Liability to pay duty under Chapter Heading 7101.08 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 for clearing silver waste/sludge of broken shells.

Analysis:

The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Glass Articles and Vacuum Flask, faced a demand for duty under Chapter Heading 7101.08 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, due to the clearance of silver waste/sludge from broken shells. The appellant provided broken glass to a job worker for extracting silver waste, with the job worker retaining the silver sludge and returning the broken glass. The appellant argued that since they did not engage in manufacturing silver sludge, they should not be liable to pay duty. The appellant relied on a decision from the High Court of Calcutta to support this contention.

The Revenue, on the other hand, contended that as the appellant was clearing silver sludge and receiving payment for it, they were indeed liable to pay duty as the silver sludge was considered to be manufactured by them. After hearing both parties and considering the submissions, the Tribunal examined the facts. It was undisputed that the job worker, not the appellant, had actually manufactured the silver sludge from the broken glass provided by the appellant. Therefore, the Tribunal held that since the appellant did not engage in the manufacturing activity of silver sludge, they were not liable to pay duty under the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief. This judgment clarifies the distinction between manufacturing activities and the liability to pay duty, emphasizing that duty is only applicable when the entity engaging in manufacturing is directly involved in the production process, which was not the case for the appellant in this scenario.