9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 846X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e adjudicating authority which required the adjudicating authority to determine if the process amounts to manufacture. The impugned order deals with the classification of the product but it does not deal with the issue of manufacture. It needs to be appreciated that a different classification per se is not sufficient to prove the fact of manufacture. To establish that the activity of manufacture is happened, it needs to be established that a new product known in the market has come into existence due to activity conducted by the appellants. We find that the Commissioner has not dealt with this issue at all despite specific remand on this issue. Since the impugned order fails to deal with the core issue regarding manufacture, the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that what they are selling are stampings only and the process of cleatting or riveting does not result in coming into existence of a part of stator or rotor. He elaborated the process of manufacturing of stator starting from the cleatting or riveting stampings as undertaken by the manufacturer of electric motors. He pointed out that for manufacturer of stator the cleatted or riveted stampings are taken and the inner and outer surfaces of stakes are made smooth. This is followed by coiling to enameled copper wire. Insulation in the form of insulating paper or polyester film is inserted in the slots in the stator stack to prevent contact between enameled copper wires and the stamping. Enamel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Delhi Cloth Mills - 1977 (001) ELT 199. He submitted that mere change in form cannot be treated as manufacture. He argued that for the processing of manufacture, a new and different article must emerge having a distinct name, character or use. He argued that no new products comes into existence on account of cleatting or riveting. He further argued that stator stamping, stacks cannot be treated as stator. He pointed out that different processes are required to be conducted on the said stacks before the stator comes into existence. He pointed out that stampings are main part of stator. He pointed out that stampings are made in loose and in numbers on the peripherals of each loos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the product as electric motor stampings with different dimensions such as 106 x 57 75 mm stators . He argued that not a single invoice had described the goods as cleatted or riveted stator stampings in the form of stacks and therefore the appellants are not liable to pay duty. The Commissioner has wholly mis-interpreted the description of the goods given in the invoice. It is submitted that the description given in the invoice is as under :- Electric Motor Stamping- 106 x 57 75 mm Stator 3.5 In some cases, they had not even done cleatting or riveting and stampings were sold in loose form. He argued that wherever invoices show cleatting or riveting charges only in those cases the goods were cleared after cleatting or rivet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the items other than rotors as stators. He pointed out that if the demand is revised by limiting the value of stator stampings in loose form and stator stampings cleared in loose it would be substantially reduced. 4. Learned AR relied on the impugned order. He also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tecumseh Products India Ltd. - 2004 (167) ELT 496 (SC), wherein it was held that repairing of defective compressor by replacing stator resulted in manufacture of stators out of new stack of lamination amounts to manufacture. 5. We have gone through rival submissions. The Revenue's reliance on the decision of Tecumseh Products India Ltd. (supra) is mis-placed as in case of Tecumseh Products India Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stator. The show-cause notice alleges that the appellants have manufactured stators of different sizes. When the matter was remanded by the Tribunal, there was a specific issue referred to the adjudicating authority which required the adjudicating authority to determine if the process amounts to manufacture. We have gone through the impugned order. The impugned order does not specifically deal with the issue regarding manufacture i.e. coming into existence, a new product different from the earlier product. The matter was remanded to Commissioner with specific order, which reads as under: - The appellants have strongly contended that the process undertaken by them does not result in emergence of any new item much less stator, inasmuch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
