Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 425 - AT - Central ExciseDuty liability - Isolated soya protein - process undertaken by appellant amounts to manufacture or not - Held that:- the objective of the process of manufacture of protein isolate appears to be to increase the concentration of the protein while at the same time eliminating the content of carbohydrate. As per the flow chart, the starting point of the making process is de-oiled cake, i.e. de-fatted. The net result is that the final product - isolate soya protein is nutritionally very different from the starting raw material - soya flour. In the landmark judgment on the subject of manufacture in the case of DCM Cloth Mills [1962 (10) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] the Apex Court has laid-down the yardstick to determine if an activity or process amounts to manufacture. When we apply such yardstick to the facts of the present case, there is very little doubt that, a new product, viz isolated soya protein which is perceived differently and which has a name, character and use which is totally different from the raw material namely soya flour, has come into existence. Therefore, we have no hesitation in concluding that the process of manufacture has been undertaken by the appellant and that the final products, ‘soya protein isolate’ would be chargeable to duty. Period of limitation - proviso to Section 11A - activity was within the knowledge of the department inasmuch as the appellant were regularly filing declarations as required under the SSI provisions declaring the product as well as the value of clearances made in the financial year - no declaration made of the fact that appellant have other units situated elsewhere in Dholi, Haldia as well as Gadarwara - Held that:- it is found that that the appellant has suppressed the material fact about details of other units. Only during investigation the department could unearth that the appellant’s company is also having other units and when total clearances of all these units are considered together, the appellant were not eligible for the exemption under the SSI notification. Therefore, the extended time limit under provision to Section 11A has been rightly invoked by Revenue. - Decided against the assessee
|