TMI Blog1987 (1) TMI 346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manually. The cut pieces were either in the form of a trapazoil polygon or rectangular. The appellants contend that the process of cutting adopted by them will not be manufacture. The process of slitting and cutting did not bring into existence a product having distinctive name, character and use. On 1-2-1983 the Department wrote to the appellants that their request for permission under Rule 56A could not be granted because the process carried on by them was not a process of manufacture. They were advised to surrender the licence. There was a visit by the authorities and in a communication dated 3-4-1983 the appellants were informed that the cutting process did not tantamount to manufacture under Section 2(f). On 9-12-1980 the Assistant Collector wrote to the appellants. On a representation and after a visit to the factory that the Tariff description of 28A was quite exhaustive and that the laminations cut from sheets would fall within the ambit of Tariff Item 28A. The appellants paid the duty and later applied for refund of duty amounting to Rs. 22,23,290.26 on 21.1.79. The Assistant Collector after discussing the matter with the Assistant Works Manager of the appellants held on 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Mandir), the Rajasthan High Court has held that after cutting and stitching umbrella cloth and giving it particular shape, a different commercial commodity comes into existence and it cannot be put to any other use except that for being used as an umbrella cover. In 1984 ECR 2164 = 1987 (31) E.L.T. 469 (Tribunal) (M/s. Inarco Ltd. Bombay v. CCE Bombay), the Tribunal has found it not possible to sustain the contention that Aprons and Cots were nothing but tubings and pipings converted into shorter length and that they have to be treated as manufactured products. In 1986 (26) E.L.T. 211 (Brakes India Ltd. Madras v. CCE Madras and Others), the Madras High Court has observed by saying adnauseam that such processes of drilling, trimming and chamferring cannot be considered as incidental or ancillary to the completion of manufacture of brake linings, the petitioners cannot escape the implications of the Statute. In paragraph 15 it is stated that it will not always be safe solely to go by a test as to whether the commodity after the change takes in a new names, though in stated circumstances, it may be useful to resort to it. It is the effect of the operation on the commodity that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s they were tied together with a tape and placed in the transformer. The appellants have also produced before us photographs of the operations carried on by them. The main contention of the appellants is that they were only cutting the strips received by them and that mere cutting would not amount to manufacture. Whether in a particular case there is a manufacturing activity under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, has to be decided with reference to the facts. The general propositions stated in the various decisions cited by both the sides have to be considered in the lights of the facts in the present case. It cannot be urged that in any case cutting would not amount to manufacture. In the case of Ajit India Pvt. Ltd. and Aruna Industries, the particular facts of the case have been examined and the Tribunal held that the operations carried on in those instances fell short of manufacturing process. In the present case the appellants have furnished the design of the cuttings at page 61 of the paper book. The laminated sheets are cut into rectangular pieces in the shape of trapazoil or other specifications required for the transformers. It must be noted that these are special S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erations that is mattering for deciding the issue. 13. We also note that since these are electrical stampings and there is a specific Tariff Entry in regard to such goods, the question whether it would amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) would not strictly arise. The specific Entry would indicate that the item is excisable whether it is as a result of a manufacturing process or not. The appellants have admittedly used these cut strips as cave or electrical stampings for the transformers. The cutting into specific designs confirms our view that these are only electrical stampings falling under Tariff Item 28A. 14. The appellants at the time of importation have classified the goods for the purpose of CVD under 26AA as sheets. So the goods have not borne duty as electrical stampings and these electrical stampings come into existence after the laminated coil has undergone various processes and ultimately being cut by the appellants into a specific design before they were placed in the transformers. This is yet another aspect of the case which shows that liability to duty cannot be avoided. 15. It was argued that these cut strips are not marketable as such and they are not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
