2016 (8) TMI 704 - HC - Central Excise

Demand - manufacture of Rubber lined Steel Tanks/Pipes - Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act 1944 - Held that - in the Assessee s own case the Tribunal held that the very same process was not manufacturing. The said order passed by the Tribunal has become final. Subsequently in another appeal came up for consideration before the CESTAT in Final Order No.692 of 2005 dated 28.04.2005 in which the Tribunal after taking into consideration the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Tega India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Calcutta-II 2004 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and the earlier order passed by the CESTAT held that the issue is already covered by the decision of the Tribunal and the Hon ble Supreme Court and there is no manufacture involved in the present case. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order-in-original and demand issued by the respondent regarding treatment of Rubber lined Steel Tanks/Pipes as excisable goods.

Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing Rubber products, received a show-cause notice questioning whether Rubber lined Steel Tanks/Pipes should be treated as excisable goods. The petitioner argued no manufacture was involved, citing relevant legal precedents. However, the Adjudicating Officer concluded that a new product emerged, confirming the proposal in the show-cause notice.

In a previous case involving the petitioner, the Tribunal had held that the same process did not amount to manufacturing, a decision that became final. Subsequently, the CESTAT also ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating that there was no manufacture involved based on previous decisions by the Tribunal and the Supreme Court. The respondent Department had previously dropped more than 20 show-cause notices issued to the petitioner. Considering these facts, the court found that the impugned order should be interfered with.

Consequently, the court allowed W.P.No.30169 of 2015, quashing the impugned order dated 17.08.2015. As a result, the demand challenged in W.P.No.30170 of 2015 dated 24.06.2015 was also quashed.