9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 891X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also process such as grinding and smoothening would no longer be understood in trade parlance as simple tubes and pipes. These goods can only be used as parts of the equipment for which they were made. The above processes have transformed, the copper tubes into new products described as charging tubes, discharge tubes, second tubes etc. which are nothing but parts of gas compressors. These products have character, use and name which are distinctly different from the generic term of copper tubes. Therefore, the process amounts to manufacture as defined in Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The assessee having declared fairly their view in the classification list filed before the proper officer, it was open to the Revenue to ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n which the above named items were not mentioned. Instead, on the reverse of the classification list they declared that they were also engaged in the trading activity of copper tube which they cut and bend to required sizes. They further declared that this process involved non manufacturing activity. The Revenue Officers visited the factory premises, found that the assessee was purchasing duty paid copper tubes and after cutting them into different sizes and bending them, they were also subjecting them to the process of grinding, smoothening etc. and selling these tubes to customers. The Revenue took the view that the process carried out by the assessee amounted to manufacture and the resultant product would be classifiable under 8414.91 as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for invoking suppression and extended period under Section 11A for demanding duty inasmuch as they have filed classification list dated 04.01.1989 in which they have declared their view that the process undertaken by them to cut and bend the purchased copper tubes is not a manufacturing activity. It was always open to the Department to undertake verification of such declaration. 3. Revenue on the other hand has reiterated the findings of the Commissioner in the impugned order. 4. We have heard Sh. Naveen Mullick, ld. Advocate for the Appellant and Sh. Yogesh Agarwal, ld. DR for the Revenue. The crux of the dispute is whether the duty paid copper tubes purchased from outside and subjected to various processes by the appellant would c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpressors. These products have character, use and name which are distinctly different from the generic term of copper tubes. We are of the view that the process amounts to manufacture as defined in Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 6. The appellant has vehemently argued that they have declared the processes in their classification list filed on 04.01.1989 in which they have also indicated their view that the processes undertaken by them do not amount to manufacture. Accordingly, they have submitted that no suppression can be attributed to them. We are inclined to agree with this view. The assessee having declared fairly their view in the classification list filed before the proper officer, it was open to the Revenue to carry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
