9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excise Act. PVC product remains PVC product only and it is only shape of such PVC film which is being changed from the tubular form to lay flat form. Otherwise there is no difference in the composition of the product which only remains PVC film. Process of edge cutting will not get covered by the definition of manufacture - starting product and the final product which fall under separate sub- headings would also not changethe scenario. Accordingly, we hold that appellants are not indulging into any act of manufacture of polyethylene sheets from polyethylene lay flat tubings and the confirmation of demand is not justified - there is no requisite to arrive at finding of limitation but for academic reason we hold that inasmuch as the demand stand raised by invocation of longer period and there being no evidence of suppression or malafide intention on the part of the assessee, invocation of longer period of limitation is not justified. Accordingly, we hold that demand is barred by limitation - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal Nos. 2087-2088 of 2005 - Final Order Nos. A/58367-58368/2013-EX(DB) - Dated:- 27-11-2013 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Mr. Sahab Singh, JJ. For th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0.03 and show cause notice dated 6.11.2003 raising demand of duty of Rs.15,14,164/- from M/s. Natraj Album and Rs. 78,797/- from M/s. Natraj Stationery for the period 1998-1999 to February, 2002 by invoking the extended period of 5 years. The notice also proposed confirmation of interest and imposition of penalties on the appellants as also on their Directors. The said notice culminated into passing of an order by the original adjudicating authority confirming the demands raised against the manufacturing units along with confirmation of interest and imposition of penalties upon them as also on the Directors. 5. On appeal against the above orders Commissioner (Appeals) vide his impugned order upheld the same in respect of duty confirmation and limitation. However, he remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for examination of the appellants claim of exemption under notification No. 8/1998 and 8/1999, i.e. small scale exemption notification, as also on the point of filing of declarations along with the manufacturing process. He, however set aside the penalties imposed upon the Directors. 6. Hence, the present two appeals. 7. After hearing both the sides, we fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 10. The question required to be decided is as to whether by adopting the process of edge cutting of the tubular form of PVC film, whether the appellant m can be said to have undertaken the process of manufacture, in terms of provisions of provisions of Rule 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The said section has been the subject matter of the dispute before various Courts including the Hon ble High Court and the Hon ble Supreme Court. The test of manufacture was laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court as back as in 1962 in the case of Union of India vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. [1977 (1) ELT (J 199) (SC)]. It was held that manufacture means bringing into existence a new substance known to the market and not merely producing some change in a substance. The said decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court stand referred to and relied upon by various Courts while deciding the issue of manufacture. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai vs. Tarpaulin International [2010 (256) ELT 481 (SC)] held that the process of converting tarpaulin sheets by stitching margins and fixing eyelets does not amount to manufacture inasmuch as the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... smuch as the character of wax is not changed. Similarly in the case of CCE, Madras, vs. Kutty Flush Doors and Furniture Co.(P) Ltd. [1988 (35) ELT 6 (SC)] it was held that inasmuch duty becomes chargeable only when a new and entirely different item emerged having a distinct name, character and use which is dependent upon various factors. Larger Bench in the case of Anil Dang vs. CCE, Vapi [2007 (213) ELT 29 (Tri-LB)] held that slitting and cutting of duty paid plastic laminated film jumbo rolls cannot held to be an activity amounting to manufacture inasmuch as the plastic laminated film jumbo rolls is same commodity as classifiable laminated rolls in smaller rolls. We may also take note of the Hon ble Delhi High Court s decision in the case of Faridabad Iron and Steel Traders Association vs. Union of India [2004 (178) ELT 1099 (Del)] holding that process of cutting or slitting of steel sheet in coil form to specific sizes not does not amount to manufacture, since no new, different and distinct articles emerged from the process. The said decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court was upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court when the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed by Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
