Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 1127 - AT - Central ExciseManufacture - crushing, grinding, gravity separation of High Carbon Ferro Chrome (HCFC) Slag by jigging in water - whether activities carried out by the main Appellant amounts to manufacture or not? - levy of duty along with interest and penalty - Held that: - The main point here is that the raw material namely HCFC Slag is classifiable under different Chapter and whereas HCFC, which is the outcome product of the assessee Appellant is in different Chapter Heading of Central Excise Tariff. The issue is whether by the processes undertaken by the assessee, a new identifiable, marketable product comes into existence - When the HCFC Slag is an altogether different product, which is subjected to different processes like crushing, grinding, watering etc. and resultant product is only HCFC, which has got separate existence in relation to its raw material namely HCF) and is an identifiable product, having independent marketability, then the yardstick of definition of manufacturing given in Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is satisfied. It is clear that subject process has not been free from doubt regarding its coverage under the definition of manufacturing under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - The matter was not free from doubt, the non-payment of duty of Central Excise by the assessee is a bona fide mistake and there cannot be imposition of any penalty on the Noticees in this regard. Therefore all the penalties imposed on the Noticee Appellants are hereby set aside. The for quantifying the liability of duty of Central Excise against the Appellant assessee for the period of 1(one) year - appeal allowed by way of remand.
|