TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng 6802.00 covers natural or artificial abrasive powder or grain on a base of textile material of paper or paperboard or on other materials, whether or not cut to size or sewn or otherwise made up. The appellant's contention in this appeal against the impugned order is that the rejection of their plea that mere cutting of the jumbo rolls of Scrotch Brite does not result into a process of manufacture is not correct and legal. There is no change in its character and the Scrotch Brite remains the same even when it is cut into pads of equal size. The Revenue has not discharged their function that such process of slitting amounts to a process of manufacture and the item is required to be classified under different Heading 9603.00. It is their contention that the mere fact that they had accepted the earlier order of the original authority holding the process to be a process of manufacture does not prevent them from seeking re-adjudication on the issue. They had re-agitated the issue before the authorities by filing the classification list under protest. There contention is that the order rejecting their plea by the authority is not justified. However, they had accepted the classification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (S.C.), the Apex Court has also held that Mere change in length, size or shape is immaterial and merely because goods after processing become different commercial commodity or have a distinctive name does not change the Excise classification if they continue to be goods of same species. He relied on the judgment of Premier Aryco India Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore - 2003 (57) RLT 296 (CEGAT-Ban.) which held that Cutting, slitting and re-packing of jumbo rolls of Tissue paper into facial tissues, napkins, etc. has been held to be not a process of manufacture. He relied on Rajpurohit GMP India Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai - 2003 (162) E.L.T. 431 (Tri.-Mumbai) wherein Slitting or cutting of Hot-rolled sheets and plastic sheets has been held to be not a process of manufacture. Likewise in CCE, Bombay v. True Graph Charts Pvt. Ltd. - 1999 (105) E.L.T. 341 (Tribunal), the process of Slitting of jumbo rolls of Thermal paper into smaller rolls have again been held to be not a process of manufacture. He relied on the case of Purolator India Limited v. CCE - 1990 (45) E.L.T. 91 (Tribunal) wherein Slitting, pleating and cutting of impregnated filter paper to form impregnated filter paper pleated pack has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct. He also relied on the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Gramophone Co. of India Ltd. v. CCE - 1999 (114) E.L.T. 770 (S.C.) wherein the Recording of Audio Cassettes on duplicating music system was held to be a process of manufacture as blank audio cassette is distinct and different from pre-recorded audio cassette and two have different use and name. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. We find that the assessee has taken a view that merely because they had earlier accepted the classification order, it does not estop them from challenging the correctness of the order and taking the plea that the process of cutting and slitting of jumbo rolls of Scrotch Brite does not amount to a process of manufacture as there is no change in the character and the product remains the same. In this regard, they have relied on the judgments already cited above. On a careful consideration, we agree with the Counsel that the appellants have the liberty to raise the question of manufacture at a later stage and, therefore, the view taken by the Commissioner that the appellants had earlier accepted the order and that they cannot raise the issue is not a correc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i.-Del.) has held that the process of slitting and printing of 'Cork tipping paper' into 'printed cork tipping paper' does not bring into existence new goods and it is not a process of manufacture. In the case of Asmaco Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai - 2003 (162) E.L.T. 256 (Tri.-Mumbai), the Tribunal has held that slitting of Crape paper to obtain masking tapes of smaller sizes does not amount to a process of manufacture. Likewise, in the case of CCE, New Delhi v. Bloom Products (India) Pvt. Ltd. - 2002 (144) E.L.T. 132 (Tri.-Del.), the Tribunal has held that Cutting jumbo paper rolls to smaller shape and size does not amount to a process of manufacture. In the case of S.R. Foils Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi-I - 2001 (138) E.L.T. 719 (T) = 2001 (45) RLT 625 (CEGAT-Del.), the Tribunal has held that Cutting, rewinding and repacking of aluminium foil from jumbo rolls into smaller length and re-winding and repacking has been held to be not a process of manufacture. The Tribunal, in the case of S.R. Tissues Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi - 2001 (136) E.L.T. 367 (Tri.-Del.) has held that Slitting/cutting of jumbo rolls of tissue paper into small sizes for use as facial tissue, toilet tissue and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
