Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2001 (8) TMI 1327

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants were noticed manufacturing 'Rubberised Printing Rollers'. Shri V.K. Kaushik, Accounts Officer and authorised signatory of the appellants on enquiries stated that the unit was doing re-rubberisation of old rollers in addition to the manufacture of new Rubberised Printing Rollers. Shri Kaushik also stated that the firm was not maintaining any Central Excise Statutory records for re-rubberised old printing rollers. It was intimated by him that they were receiving old rubber printing rollers and after re-rubberisation, they were sending back the said rollers to their customers and charging the cost of re-rubberisation and repairing charg .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ut and removed; that sometimes, the rubber was already cut by the sender and the spindle so sent or the spindle bought from the market undergo the same process as in the case of new rollers. The Department, therefore, issued a SCN stating that the process undertaken to convert the old rollers into re-rubberised rollers amounts to manufacture and therefore, the appellants were asked to explain as to why duty should not be demanded from them and why penalty should not be imposed. 3. In reply to the SCN, the appellants submitted that they were receiving old and used rollers from various customers for re-rubberisation; that the process of re-rubberisation of the old and used rollers comprises removal of old rubber from the roller and appl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng or bonding a fresh layer on the old and used spindle. Ld. Counsels for the appellant submitted that the question whether the process of re-rubberising the old and used rubber rollers amounts to manufacture came up for consideration of the Department as early as 1986; that the Department under its Circular No. 3/86-CX, dated 14-3-1986 clarified that re-rubberising of rollers does not amount to manufacture, in view of the law laid down in the case of CCE v. Saran Engineering Co. Ltd. wherein the Tribunal held that re-shelling of sugar mill roller shaft does not amount to manufacture since a new and different article does not emerge in such process and the sugar mill roller shaft remained as such, prior to as well as after treatment. Ld. C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... facture. Ld. Counsels pleaded that impugned order has been passed relying on the decisions rendered in the case of Jupiter Engraver v. UOI reported in 1993 (68) E.L.T. 60 (Bom.), Gurjar Graves Ltd. reported in 1980 (6) E.L.T. 357, wherein it was considered whether the activity of engraving amounts to manufacture. It was pleaded that the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of J.S.S. Printing Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 309 held that the activity of engraving for the 2nd and 3rd time and so on, does not amount to manufacture. It was submitted by the Counsels that the Tribunal had relied on its decision but fixing of new design on the cylinder does not involve manufacture in the case of Special Prints Ltd. v .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... respect of re-rubberisation of old and used rollers. Ld. DRs submitted that the appellant company was not only repairing re-rubberised rollers but also were exchanging re-rubberised rollers and some times purchasing old and used rollers, re-rubberising them and selling them. The emphasis of the ld. DRs was that the process of rubberisation and re-rubberisation was the same both in the case of used rollers or new rollers. Ld. DRs submitted that the case law cited and relied by the appellants is distinguishable as the specifications were different in different cases; that in the instant case re-rubberized rollers were not only being prepared as repairs, reconditioning, re-making as provided for under Rule 173H but were being generally prepare .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates