Refund granted for cold rolling process as not deemed new manufacturing. Excise duty refund eligibility upheld.

The Tribunal held that the process of cold rolling of hot rolled strips does not amount to manufacturing a new product. The appellant was found eligible for the refund of Central Excise duty paid as the Revenue failed to prove that cold rolling resulted in new goods with distinct characteristics. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions and ordered the refund claims to be admissible, remanding the matter to determine if the duty incidence was passed on to customers. All appeals were disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues:
- Whether the process of cold rolling of hot rolled strips amounts to manufacture.
- Eligibility of the appellant for the refund of Central Excise duty paid.

Analysis:
1. Issue of Manufacture: The appellant argued that cold rolling does not amount to manufacturing a new product, citing a Supreme Court decision and a Tribunal order in their favor. They claimed that the process of cold rolling does not involve manufacture, and the Revenue is bound by the Tribunal's decision. The principle of unjust enrichment was also raised, stating that the duty was borne by them and not passed on to customers.

2. Counter Arguments: The Respondent contended that the process of cold rolling changes the character and use of the product, making it a new product. Reference was made to the HSN Explanatory Notes and a High Court decision supporting the view that such a process constitutes manufacture. It was argued that when collecting amounts, including duty, from customers, the duty incidence cannot be claimed as not passed on.

3. Legal Definitions: Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act defines "manufacture" broadly, including any process specified in the Central Excise Tariff Act as amounting to manufacture. The judgment cited the leading case of Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd., emphasizing that a new and different article must emerge for a process to be considered manufacturing.

4. Judgment: The Tribunal analyzed the evidence presented by both sides, including the Apex Court's consideration of cold rolling in the appellant's previous case. It was noted that the Revenue failed to prove that cold rolling resulted in new goods with distinct characteristics. Relying on the Tribunal's previous order and the Supreme Court's decision, the Tribunal held that the refund claims by the appellant were admissible. However, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to determine if the duty incidence was passed on to customers. All appeals were disposed of accordingly.

---