Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 683 - CESTAT AHMEDABADProcess amounting to manufacture - whether the activity carried out in the Daman factory of cutting/slitting of jumbo rolls of plain PVC Sheets into smaller rolls and printing of the same amounts to manufacture or otherwise? HELD THAT:- Tribunal in the case of M/S BOMBAY KUNSTSTOFF PHARMA SUPPLIES P. LTD., JUSTIN MARTIN VERSUS C.C.E. & S.T. DAMAN [2018 (8) TMI 14 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] where it was held that the activities of printing of PVC sheet by the Appellant does not amount to manufacture. - once it is held that PVC sheets cleared by Thane unit was a final product and activity of cutting/slitting and printing carried out at Daman unit did not amount to manufacture, then question of paying duty on printing charges by the Appellant did not arise. The appeal filed by the department before the Supreme Court was dismissed in COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI VERSUS M/S RAJPUROHIT GMP INDIA LTD. & ORS. [2008 (10) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT]. The Supreme Court while upholding the decision of the Tribunal held that the activity of cutting and slitting sheets/films did not amount to manufacture. Once it is not in dispute that the matter was transferred to Call Book awaiting the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Adjudicating Authority was in error in ignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Valuation - inclusion of amount towards assessable value of goods - HELD THAT:- To include any amount towards assessable value of goods, there must first be manufacture to attract the charging section of the Central Excise Act and only then the valuation of goods under section 4 will have to be looked into - In the present case, since the activity of cutting/slitting and printing of PVC sheets does not amount to manufacture, the question of including any charges towards printing in the assessable value will not arise. In the present case as well the evidence relied upon in the form of price lists have been resumed from the residence of Mr. Omprakash who as per Appellant was never employed with them. Apart from that, the fact that cross examinations could not be conducted due to delay in adjudication cannot be overlooked - the price list and statements cannot be relied upon without being supported by direct evidence showing under valuation and receipt of cash as alleged and consequently it cannot be conclusively proved that the Appellant had received any amount in cash as alleged in the show cause notice. Be that as it may, the demand confirmed against the Appellant in any event is required to be set aside as the activity carried out at daman factory did not amount to manufacture. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The allegations made in the show cause notice on the basis of receipt of cash towards printing charges by the Appellant is not supported by any corroborative evidence - the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the facts of the circumstances of the present case. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|