2004 (9) TMI 521

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Central Excise duty. 2. The very first contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant during the hearing is that there was no manufacturing involved at all so as to attract imposition of Central Excise duty. This submission is being made on the contention that the appellant was procuring assorted scrap from the market and converting it into scrap. Thus, there was no manufacture of a new product. It is also being contended that two types of processes were being carried out. The first process is that scrap in the form of tubes of paste etc., which contains other materials like paper as impurities, is burnt and the impurities removed and such scrap is sold. The second process is that the assorted scrap after clearing by removing impur .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ugned order, goods have been valued at Rs. 75/- per kg. The learned Advocate also submitted that for each year, valuation should be fixed taking into account the evidence on record. It is also further pointed out that duty has been imposed treating the value of Rs. 75/- per kg. as assessable value, instead of treating it as cum-duty price. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that it is settled that sale prices cannot be treated as assessable value. Instead, it is to be treated as cum-duty price and assessable value has to be arrived at from the same. 4. As against the above contentions on behalf of the appellant, the learned SDR has pointed out that re-cycling of scrap into primarily metals is clearly a manufacturing activity inas .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the submission made based on the classification in the Customs and Central Excise Tariff. It is well settled that the tariff is merely a classification of products and is no authority on the question of manufacture. That question is to be determined based on the facts of each goods. In the present case, as already pointed out, since there is conversion of scrap to original metal, the same is to be treated as manufacture. The classification in the tariffs have no concern in this regard. 6. We are also unable to find merit in the appellant s contention that he has carried out two different processes and that the materials manufactured by him were two different materials classified under W and Y headings and that Y stood for aluminium .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X