Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 402 - AT - Central ExciseProcess amounting to manufacture - whether conversion of Crude Sulphur Lumps/Granules into Sulphur Powder, would amount to ‘manufacture’, as per the definition of said phrase contained in Section 2(f) ibid? - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellants have amply demonstrated that the conversion activities undertaken by them do not fall within the scope and ambit of the definition of ‘manufacture’, provided in Section 2(f) ibid. In this context, it is noticed that the appellants have filed various declarations from time to time and also different correspondences were exchanged between them and the department, conveying the fact of manufacture of Pesticides, Fungicides & Sulphur Powder; that the letter dated 04.01.2007 was addressed to the department, explaining that the process of pulverizing of Crude Sulphur into powder form etc. would not amount to manufacture, as there is no change in characteristic, properties, quality, grade, etc.; that on 20.10.2008 again, the process of manufacture of Sulphur Powder was explained to the Preventive Officers, during their visit to the factory; that the appellants filed further declaration before the department on 08.04.2009, explaining inter alia, with the help of drawings & designs that the process undertaken for conversion of Crude Sulphur into Sulphur Powder by pulverization process will not amount to manufacture. It can safely be concluded that the ingredients itemized in the proviso clause appended to Section 11A ibid have no application in the case of the present appellants for invocation of the extended period of limitation for confirmation of the adjudged demands. The present appeals are allowed by way of remand to the learned Commissioner of Central Excise, having jurisdiction over the factory of the appellants to decide and adjudicate on the subject issue, whether the disputed goods emerge as a result of manufacturing activity and confirm to the definition of ‘manufacture’ contained in the definition clause provided under Section 2(f) ibid.
|