9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (5) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also undertakes job work on behalf of various other customers of rubber lining of steel pipes and the like supplied by such others. For rubber lining appellant receives job charges from customers. Demands in these cases were made in respect of July to September, 1985, January, 1986 to February, 1986 and December, 1986. Appellant was paying duty on assessable value being the sum total of the value of rubber lining and the job charges received for affixing rubber lining on steel pipes. Appellant was not including in assessable value the value of steel pipes so received from the customers. Appellant was availing invoice price procedure under Notification No. 120/75 which was in force till 1-3-1986. Accordingly show cause notices dated 5-3-198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not result in any new product as known to the trade and distinct and different from the steel pipes received from the customers therefore no duty could be levied at all and duty could be levied only on the rubber product or rubber lining manufactured by the appellant and the same has been paid admittedly. He placed reliance on Board s circular as well as certain decisions. These contentions are rebutted by Shri H.K. Jain, SDR, according to whom the activity of the appellant can be said to lead to coming into existence of a new product as know to the trade. 5. In paragraph 3 of the Appeal Memo filed by the appellant it is stated as follows : ........Pipes are supplied by the customers. Flanges are procured from the market and are we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notice indicated that coated pipes are classified along with uncoated pipes in HSN and HSN Explanatory Notes for Heading 73.04 and 73.05 specifically provide that the product of the heading may be coated, for example, with plastics or glass wool combined with bitumen. It also referred to an earlier letter of the Board clarifying that coating of dutypaid steel pipes would not amount to manufacture. Even according to the Learned Counsel for the appellant the Trade Notice would not directly cover the cases at hand. The scope of Trade Notice cannot be expanded by analogy of other situation. 7. We will briefly advert to the decisions relied on by the Learned Counsel for the appellant. In Lathia Industrial Supplies Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. In our opinion, the above decisions are not helpful to the appellant in the present fact situation. We have already adverted to the process carried out by the appellant as explained in the appeal memo. The process involved not merely affixing rubber lining on the pipe using adhesive. Steel pipe is subject to various processes as a result of which it is protected on the inside from adverse chemical reaction and protected on the outside from weather. Collector (Appeals) indicated that apart from these processes certain amount of coating is also done. Appellant having accepted hitherto that the process carried out amounted to manufacture and the appellant having opted hitherto to pay duty on the value of rubber sheet plus appellants job c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
