Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2014 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 352 - AT - Central ExciseDuty demand - Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of photo album classifiable under heading No. 48.20 - Liability to pay duty on the PVC films being manufactured by them out of lay flat tubings - Imposition of penalties - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Confirmation of interest - Whether by adopting the process of edge cutting of the tubular form of PVC film, the appellant can be said to have undertaken the process of manufacture, in terms of provisions of provisions of Rule 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that:- process of cutting or slitting of steel sheet in coil form to specific sizes not does not amount to manufacture, since no new, different and distinct articles emerged from the process - appellants are only edge cutting the PVC polytubings so as to make the in-leaves for the photo albums there can be no doubt about the fact that mere edge cutting of tubing so as to split it into one PVC film will not be covered by the definition appearing under section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. PVC product remains PVC product only and it is only shape of such PVC film which is being changed from the tubular form to lay flat form. Otherwise there is no difference in the composition of the product which only remains PVC film. Process of edge cutting will not get covered by the definition of manufacture - starting product and the final product which fall under separate sub- headings would also not changethe scenario. Accordingly, we hold that appellants are not indulging into any act of manufacture of polyethylene sheets from polyethylene lay flat tubings and the confirmation of demand is not justified - there is no requisite to arrive at finding of limitation but for academic reason we hold that inasmuch as the demand stand raised by invocation of longer period and there being no evidence of suppression or malafide intention on the part of the assessee, invocation of longer period of limitation is not justified. Accordingly, we hold that demand is barred by limitation - Decided in favour of assessee.
|