9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (5) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor of Central Excise, Bombay, by his order dated 17-3-78. 2. The demands against the appellant relate to the period 1-3-1975 to 29-4.1975. It appears that after Tariff Item 68 of the C.E.T. came into force, the appellants filed a classification list in respect of the work of engraving on Copper Rolls of various sizes and designs done by them, classifying the goods under Tariff Item No. 68. It also appears that the appellants paid duty on the value of job work done by them. At the time of finalisation of the RT 12 Returns the Superintendent of Central Excise, inter alia, told the appellants that they had paid duty only in respect of job charges of engraving without taking into account the value of the rolls. The appellants were called up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us. 4. Shri Deshpanday submitted that the process of engraving carried on by the appellants does not constitute manufacture within the meaning of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and, therefore, no duty was chargeable against the appellants. He made it clear that in taking up this plea he was not claiming refund of duty already paid by the appellants but through this plea he was resisting the demand of differential duty raised against the appellants. He also submitted that the Notification No. 119/75 was classificatory in nature and, therefore, its benefit should have been given to the appellants and duty demanded only on the job work charges and not on the value of rolls also. 5. On behalf of the respondents Shri S.C. Rohtagi s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... burden is primarily on the Revenue to show that manufacture of goods has taken place on which excise duty can be demanded. Merely because the appellants did not raise the plea earlier would not absolve the Revenue from discharging their burden of showing that in fact manufacture has taken place entitling them to make a demand of central excise duty. Considering all this we have granted leave to the appellants to raise the plea that on the given facts no manufacture takes place. In Union of India v. Delhi Cloth Mills case [1977 E.L.T. (J 77) = AIR 1963 S.C. 791] Supreme Court has held that manufacture involves bringing into existence a new substance and it does not mean merely producing some change in a substance. Further, under Section 2(f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partly allowed. 10. [Order per : I.J. Rao, Member (T)].- I have carefully gone through the order of my learned brothers. While I agree with the finding that Notification No. 119/1975-C.E., dated 30-4-1975 operated prospectively and not retrospectively. I am unable, with great respect, to agree with the finding given on the question as to whether there was manufacture when Copper Rolls were engraved, by the appellants. The facts concerning the process of manufacture, presented before us during the period, do not, in my opinion, provide enough material to come to a decision on this point. Besides, this point was not agitated before the lower authorities. The question whether manufacture is involved in the process of engraving, is a mixed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
