9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erting of Canvas roll into :- (A) the Canvas Frame, (B) Canvas Board, (C) Canvas Pad, amounts to manufacture and liable to excise duty. 2. The appellant-Tristar Creative Products Pvt. Ltd. (TCPL for short), is engaged in the processing of primed canvas fabric into canvas products in usable form. For making canvas products, the appellant-TCPL procures jumbo roll of canvas fabric in the running length of 200-300 metres. Thereafter, the primed canvas fabric is converted into various different usable forms namely :- (i) Canvas Roll i.e. small length of Canvas cloth about five metres - the same is packed in roll form for sale, (ii) stretched canvas frame - which is ready for painting, (iii) Canvas Board Panel-appellant purchases wood board ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he notice of the department and the duty demand is also hit by limitation. 5. The Revenue issued a show cause notice dated 23-6-2004 whereby it was contended that the process undertaken by the appellant amounts to 'manufacture' and therefore are liable to pay duty amounting to the Rs. 40,97,108/- (Basic Excise duty of Rs. 27,31,405/- + Additional Excise Duty of Rs. 13,65,703/-) by invoking the extended period, for the period from 1-4-2002 to 31-10-2003. Accordingly, appellants were issued the show cause notice wherein duty was demanded by invoking the extended period along with interest and penalty. Another, show cause notice dated 28-10-2004 was also issued for the subsequent period 1-11-2003 to 27-5-2004 regarding duty demand of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m-duty-benefit and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for re-calculation of tax, penalty, etc. on cum-duty-price. 8. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal, the present appeals before this Tribunal. 9. The ld. Counsel for the appellants urges that the issue is no longer res integra rely on ruling by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. J.G. Glass reported in 1998 (97) E.L.T. 5 wherein the scope of the 'manufacture' was defined by relying upon its earlier decision in Union of India v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills - 1977 (1) E.L.T. (J 199) (S.C.) it was held that :- "Para 9. The contention of the assessee is that printing and decorating bottles will not by any stretch of imagination amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e" used as a verb is generally understood to mean as "bringing into existence a new substance" and does not mean merely "to produce some change in a substance", however minor in consequence the change may be. This distinction is 'well brought about in a passage thus quoted in Vol. 26, from American judgment. The passage runs thus :- 'Manufacture' implies a change, but every change is not manufacture and yet every change of an article is the result of treatment, labour and manipulation. But something more is necessary and there must be transformation; a new and different article must emerge having a distinctive name, character or use." The Apex Court further held in Para 16 as follows :- "Para 16 On an analysis of the aforesaid rulin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsp; Trans Asia Carpets Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Meerut [2000 (116) E.L.T. 135 (Tribunal)] iii. Win Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-I [2014 (299) E.L.T. 206 (Tri.-LB)] iv. Collector of Central Excise v. Technoweld Industries [2003 (155) E.L.T. 209 (S.C.)] v. Munch Food Products Ltd. v. Collector of C. Ex., New Delhi [1999 (114) E.L.T. 521 (Tribunal)]. Accordingly he prays for allowing the appeals with consequential benefits. 11. The ld. AR appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He claimed that the process undertaken by appellant - TCPL amounts to 'manufacture' and therefore, the adj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
