2019 (1) TMI 234 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - Process amounting to manufacture or not - classification of such products - issue pending adjudication before higher forum - Held that - Once the controversy is pending adjudication before the highest forum of the country, there seems no reason to have adjudication on merits in these Appeals. Resultantly, four of the Appeals herein are hereby adjourned sine die so as to follow the judicial discipline to avoid conflict of opinion and also to save parties from unnecessary expenditure of time and money.

Summary

Issues:
Main issue: Whether the activity of the appellant amounts to manufacture or not, along with the classification of goods and invocation of extended period of limitation.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI involved four appeals with common issues. The appellants were engaged in processing pictures, certificates, and momentos with gold plated nickel foils inside frames, as well as in processing desktop clocks. The Department alleged that the appellants were involved in manufacturing and clandestine removal of excisable goods based on a search conducted in 2003. Show Cause Notices were issued for different periods with duty demands, partly confirmed. The appellants contended that their activity did not amount to manufacture, citing previous tribunal orders and pending appeals in the Apex Court. They also objected to the SCN's timing and lack of evidence for tax evasion intent.

The Department argued that the goods were excisable and the activity constituted manufacture. Two appeals were already before the Apex Court, making them non-maintainable. The Tribunal noted the common issue of whether the appellant's activity amounted to manufacture and the classification of goods under different chapters. The appellant was engaged in processing various items, and previous SCNs had confirmed manufacturing activities for framed pictures and desktop clocks, with framed pictures classified under Chapter 4901 with nil duty.

The Tribunal observed that the appeals before it were maintainable as they were based on additional data provided post-previous adjudication. Considering the pending appeals in the Apex Court and to avoid conflicting decisions, the Tribunal adjourned all four appeals sine die. This decision aimed to follow judicial discipline, prevent unnecessary expenditure, and allow parties to seek appropriate remedies post the Apex Court's decision. The parties were granted liberty to approach the relevant forum after the Apex Court's outcome, maintaining the legal, proper, and pragmatic approach in the matter.