TMI Blog1995 (1) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om other parties on job work basis. They seized 606 spools of such slit Audio Magnetic Tapes of width not exceeding 6.5 mm valued at Rs. 12,020/-. After further investigation the appellants were served with a show cause notice dated 18-2-1985 requiring them to show cause why Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 39,375/- should not be recovered from them on Slit Audio Magnetic Tapes valued at Rs. 1,50,000/- falling under Item 59(1) of Central Excise Tariff and why penalty should not be imposed on them. The appellants were also asked to show cause why 606 spools of Audio Magnetic Tapes of width not exceeding 6.5 mm seized from their factory should not be confiscated. Thereafter, by the impugned order the Additional Collector held that by Slit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he grounds that Jumbo rolls of Audio Tapes were classifiable under Tariff Item 59(5) and after slitting into tapes of width of not exceeding 6.5 mm they fell under Tariff Item 59(1) was erroneous since Jumbo rolls of Audio Tapes were not covered by Tariff Item 59(5) which covered prepared media meant only for video or image or sound recording. In support of his contention that slitting of Jumbo rolls of Audio Tapes into tapes of width not exceeding 6.5 mm did not amount to manufacture he cited the following decisions :- (i) CC v. Hindustan Photo Films - 1991 (52) E.L.T. 301 (Tri.) (ii) Computer Graphics (Pvt.) Ltd. v. UOI - 1991 (52) E.L.T. 491 (Mad.) He contended that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Dipen Textiles (P) Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise, reported in 1990 (49) E.L.T. 326 as long as the process carried out results in different identifiable goods, it would amount to manufacture even though the initial and final product may fall under the said tariff entry. He submitted that the question whether slitting of jumbo rolls of magnetic tapes into tapes of smaller width amounts to manufacture has been settled by the Tribunal s decision in the case of Dipen Textiles (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (supra). He added that in the case of Inarco Limited Bombay v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, reported in 1987 (31) E.L.T. 469 the Tribunal has held that even a simple process may constitute manufacture if it brings into existence a new and different commodity. He stated t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r form or packing, but excluding cassette tapes. Twenty-five per cent ad valorem . (2) Sound recorded magnetic tapes of width not exceeding 6.5 millimeters, whether in spools or in reels or in any other form or packing, sound recorded cassette tapes. Twenty-five per cent ad valorem. (3) Cassette tapes for sound recording. Twenty-five per cent ad valorem . (4) Sound recorded cassette tapes. Twenty-five per cent ad valorem . (5) Prepared media for television image and sound recording such as video tapes and video discs. Twenty-five per cent ad valorem. (6) Television image and sound recorded media such as video tapes and v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... product. For these reasons, we do not find any force in the appellants contention that the appellants activity of slitting of jumbo rolls of audio tapes into smaller rolls having width not exceeding 6.5 mm did not amount to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants has contended that the slitting of jumbo rolls of audio tapes into rolls of width not exceeding 6.5 mm amounted to manufacture has to be held as not sustainable since his finding was based on the erroneous assumption that jumbo rolls of audio tapes were classifiable under Tariff Item 59(5) and after slitting into tapes of width not exceeding 6.5 mm they were transformed into a new product fal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
