9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to change of the sub-heading. This issue is no longer res integra. Under similar facts and circumstances, the Hon ble Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI-I VERSUS S.R. TISSUES PVT. LTD. [ 2005 (8) TMI 111 - SUPREME COURT] , on the issue of whether the process of unwinding, cutting and slitting to sizes of jumbo rolls of tissue paper would amount to manufacture on the first principles or under Sec 2(f) of the Act, it was held that the activity of slitting and cutting of jumbo rolls of plain tissue paper/aluminium foil into smaller size does not amount to manufacture as character and end-use did not undergo any change on account of winding, cutting/slitting and packing - The aforementioned ruling of the Apex Court covers the issue herein on all fours. Extended period of Limitation - HELD THAT:- The SCN is bad as extended period of limitation is not available to Revenue under the admitted fact that all the facts were in the knowledge of the Revenue, as is evident from the earlier SCNs issued either for demand of Excise duty or for demand of service tax. Admittedly, appellant had maintained proper books of accounts and records and have been regularly filing thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Mr. K. Satish Kumar, Deputy General Manager (Operations) of the appellant company dt.19.01.2012 before the Superintendent of Central Excise, Nalgonda Range. d) Invoice wise detail of clearances submitted by the assessee (in an annexure). e) Statements of Mr. K.G. Joshi, Director (Technical) of the appellant company dt.02.03.2012 06.03.2012 before the Superintendent of Central Excise, Nalgonda Range. 3. Assailing the impugned orders, learned Counsel for the appellant inter alia urges that the issue as to whether the above processes carried out by the appellant amounts to manufacture or not had been earlier raised for the period March 1992 to July 1992 by way of issue of SCN and the demands were also confirmed vide OIO No. 01/1993 dt.08.01.1993. Upon appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that such processes do not amount to manufacture, vide OIA No. 43/1993 dt.10.03.1993 and this order has also been accepted by the department. The Commissioner (Appeals) has exhaustively gone into the process and held that the process does not involve emergence of any new product with new character, use and name. Thus decision has become final. 4. He further urges that thereafter, for the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e present appeals have been filed. 6. Learned Counsel further urges that the very same processes undertaken by the appellant on pipes supplied by principals on job work basis has been held to be not amounting to manufacture in the previous proceedings. The same processes are being carried out by the appellant all through the period. The only reason for the change in the stand of the department to allege that the very same activities now amount to manufacture, is the fact of introduction of 8 digit based Central Excise Tariff from 2005. In this connection, he submits that when all the facts are within the knowledge of the department, the demand arising only on account of change in any legal provisions, cannot be raised by alleging any suppression of facts by the appellant. The appellant is of the bonafide view that their activities do not amount to manufacture as the issue has been well settled long back. Hence, the demand up to March 2011 is hit by time and the normal period demand would only be Rs.53,43,759/-. 7. He further urges that mere introduction of new Central Excise Tariff, which involves a change in the Tariff heading between the pipes purchased by the appellant and the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther urges that the appellant procures plain end seamless steel green pipes falling under CETH 7304 1910 and then undertake processes, which converts them into Casing pipes and Production tubings falling under CETH 7304 2390. The green pipes are procured to specific metallurgical, chemical and dimensional requirements of the appellant. Such metallurgical specifications are issued by American Petroleum Institute. After purchasing the green pipe, the appellant undertakes processing in the nature of upsetting, heat treatment, straightening, NDT inspection, threading, inspection and phosphating. Similarly, coupling is also subjected to heat treatment, threading, phosphating, etc., and thereafter, the coupling is affixed with the pipes and then further subjected to Hydro testing and final inspection and thereafter, are subjected to thread protectors installation, rust preventive coating and then are bundled for final shipment. 13. Learned AR further urges that the issue in earlier SCN dt.29.09.1992 was demand of Excise duty on the ground that the process undertaken by the appellant amounted to manufacture, which was finally held by Commissioner (Appeals) that the process undertaken by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts to manufacture, due to change of the sub-heading. We find that this issue is no longer res integra. Under similar facts and circumstances, the Hon ble Supreme Court in CCE vs SR Tissues Pvt Ltd (supra), on the issue of whether the process of unwinding, cutting and slitting to sizes of jumbo rolls of tissue paper would amount to manufacture on the first principles or under Sec 2(f) of the Act, it was held that the activity of slitting and cutting of jumbo rolls of plain tissue paper/aluminium foil into smaller size does not amount to manufacture as character and end-use did not undergo any change on account of winding, cutting/slitting and packing. It was also held that slitting and cutting of toilet tissue paper or aluminium foil has not been treated as manufacture by legislature under Section/Chapter notes of Central Excise Tariff, hence Sec 2(f) of the Act is not applicable. It was also held that mere mention of a product in a tariff heading does not necessarily implies that the said product was obtained by process of manufacture, just because raw material and finished product fall under two different sub-headings. It cannot be presumed that process of obtaining finished produ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
