TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appellant’s unit and its activities. Penalty u/r 26 - Held that: - no mala fide can be attributed to Sh. Shirish Jain-appellant, the Director of the appellant company and Sh. B.K. Sharma-appellant, President (Tech.) of the company (appellant-TCPL) and therefore penalty against them under Rule 26 is also set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/572-574/2007-EX(DB) - Final Order Nos. A/70925-70927/2016-EX(DB) - Dated:- 9-6-2016 - Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (J) and Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (T) Shri Subhash Chand Jain, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Jt. Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : Anil Choudhary, Member (J)]. - These appeals have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sting, etc. carried out to make the goods in a usable form do not amount to manufacture . Mere process of cutting and fixing on frame or pad with the intent to sell in the market does not amount to manufacture . 4. It is further contended that essential character of the primed canvas does not undergo a change by the said processes. The primed canvass remain as such but is converted into a useable form. Hence the processes of canvas cutting or pasting do not amount to manufacture as defined under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act and as such no excise duty is leviable thereon under Central Excise Act or Rules. It was further contended that they had submitted a letter dated 10-4-2002 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith interest. The adjudicating authority dropped rest of the duty demand towards AED as proposed under the SCNs. Further, it also imposed penalty of ₹ 3,99,565/- under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Further, the adjudicating authority also imposed penalty of ₹ 5,00,000/- under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on Mr. Shirish Jain, Director and a penalty of ₹ 5,00,000/- of Shri B.K. Sharma, President (Tech.) of appellant company. 7. Being aggrieved by the order-in-original, the appellants filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), Noida. By the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal in part, holding that no excise duty is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... about the correctness of the respondents case that the raw oil purchased by the respondents for the purpose of manufacture of Vanaspati does not become at any stage refined oil as is known to the consumers and the commercial community. The first branch of Mr. Pathak s argument must therefore be rejected. The other branch of Mr. Pathak s argument is that even if it be held that the respondents do not manufacture refined oil as is known to the market they must be held to manufacture some kind of non-essential vegetable oil by applying to the raw material purchased by them, the processes of neutralisation by alkali and bleaching by activated earth and/or carbon. According to the learned Counsel manufacture is complete as soon as b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and can be sold and used as such. By the process of printing names or logos on the bottles, the basic character of the commodity does not change. They continue to be bottles. It cannot be said that but for the process of printing, the bottles will serve no purposes or are of no commercial use . 10. Ld. Counsel states that the appellant-TCPL converts canvas cloth by cutting it to short length and pasting on the board or frame and makes canvas cloth ready for painting. The process is undertaken for making canvas cloth usable for the purpose of painting and as such no new commodity having any distinctive name, character and use has come into existence. It, therefore, does not amount to manufacture . Accordingly, the ld. Counsel also relie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
