TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in respect of these items, the activity of labeling, relabeling, packing or re-packing or adoption of any other treatment to render them marketable are deemed as ‘manufacture' under Section 2(f) of the Act. CETH 4811 and 8546 have not been specified in the said Schedule even though similar products falling under CETH 4816, 4818, 8536, 8539, etc. figure in the said Schedule. If the legislature intended the process of cutting and slitting to be amounting to manufacture, then CETH 4811 and 8546 should also have been included in the said Schedule. Further, in various Chapter Notes in the Tariff, wherever the legislature intended cutting and slitting to be amounting to ‘manufacture', specific notes were provided. In the present case, in resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istinctive name, character and use and, therefore, the process amounts to manufacture'. Reliance is placed on the decision of the hon'ble apex Court in the case of Kores India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2004 (174) ELT 7 (SC) wherein it was held that cutting and spooling of typewriter/telex ribbons in jumbo rolls of 210 meters or more into ribbons of standard length of 10 meters and 5 meters and spooling into metal spools and packing them with blister packing and sealing with aluminium foil results in a distinct product with identifiable function and use. Therefore, such a process would amount to manufacture. 3.1 It is contended that the ratio of the said decision would apply to the facts of the present case and, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 30/06/2005, the respondent decided not to make any payment of duty inasmuch as the process undertaken by them did not amount to manufacture'. They also stopped availing of CENVAT credit of the duty paid on the inputs/capital goods. 4.1 He further relies on the decision of the hon'ble apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. S.R. Tissues Pvt. Ltd. 2005 (186) ELT 385 (SC) wherein a question arose whether slitting/cutting of jumbo rolls of plain tissue paper/aluminium foils into smaller size would amount to manufacture or not and the hon'ble apex Court held that the process of slitting/cutting of jumbo rolls of plain tissue paper/aluminium foils into various size would not amount to manufacture both on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of this Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Win Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2014 (299) E.L.T. 206-CESTAT-MAD-LB wherein the question for consideration was whether cutting of carpet rolls into smaller sizes and subjecting such cut sizes to a process of stitching linings at the edges would amount to manufacture or not? The Larger Bench, after considering the various decisions on the subject matter came to the conclusion that such activity would not amount to manufacture. 4.6 In view of the decisions by the apex Court and the Larger and other Benches of this Tribunal, it is contended that the activity undertaken by the appellant does not result in emergence of a new product with a distinct name, characte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also have been included in the said Schedule. Further, in various Chapter Notes in the Tariff, wherever the legislature intended cutting and slitting to be amounting to manufacture', specific notes were provided. In the present case, in respect of CETH 4811 and 8546, no such Chapter Note exists. All these points to the fact that the legislature did not intend to treat cutting and slitting of jumbo rolls of products falling under 4811 and 8546, to smaller sizes so as to make them useable by the user as amounting to manufacture'. 6. In view of the above factual and legal analysis, we do not find any merit in the Revenue's appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as devoid of merits. (Dictated in Court) - - TaxTMI - T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
