1987 (7) TMI 461 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Duty payable on the product marketed as Aluminium Paint
- Application of Rule 56A procedure for aluminium paste purchased from outside
- Whether duty should be charged as demanded

Analysis:

1. Duty payable on the product marketed as Aluminium Paint:
The case involved a dispute regarding the duty payable on a product marketed as Aluminium Paint by a manufacturer. The manufacturer cleared aluminium medium from their factory, which was duty paid, and then packed it along with aluminium paste procured from outside in common cartons for marketing. The Assistant Collector demanded duty on the product marketed as Aluminium Paint. However, the Collector (Appeals) held that duty was only payable on the aluminium medium manufactured by the appellant. The Collector's decision was based on the fact that the two products were packed separately and put in a common carton outside the factory, and there was no evidence to suggest that combining the two separately manufactured items constituted manufacturing under the law.

2. Application of Rule 56A procedure for aluminium paste purchased from outside:
The appellants argued that they followed the instructions of the Central Board, which required treating aluminium medium and aluminium paste separately for the levy of duty. They contended that the aluminium paste was duty paid and procured from outside, and they packed it separately from the aluminium medium in their duty paid godown. The Assistant Collector, however, noted that the appellants did not avail the Rule 56A procedure for the aluminium paste purchased from outside for manufacturing aluminium paint. The Assistant Collector upheld the demand raised by the Range Officer, Central Excise, emphasizing that the appellants did not follow the prescribed procedure or pay duty on the aluminium paste portion.

3. Whether duty should be charged as demanded:
The Assistant Collector's findings did not address the specific pleas raised by the appellants or provide a basis for why the duty should be charged as demanded. The Appellate Tribunal observed that the duty was liable to be paid only on the aluminium medium manufactured by the appellants, as they were not manufacturing the final product of Aluminium Paint but merely combining separately manufactured items for marketing purposes. The Tribunal rejected the appeal, affirming the decision of the Collector (Appeals) that duty was not payable on the product marketed as Aluminium Paint, considering the legal definition of manufacture under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the Collector (Appeals) that duty was only payable on the aluminium medium manufactured by the appellants, and not on the product marketed as Aluminium Paint. The Tribunal emphasized that combining separately manufactured items in a common container for marketing did not constitute manufacturing under the law. The appeal was rejected based on these grounds.