2004 (1) TMI 401 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal remands case for further examination due to technical oversight

DEVIDAYAL ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., MEERUT

DEVIDAYAL ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., MEERUT - 2004 (165) E.L.T. 91 (Tri. - Del.) Issues involved:Whether processes undertaken by the appellant amount to manufacture.Analysis:The appeal involved a dispute regarding whether the processes conducted by the appellant company constituted manufacturing activities. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing pressure cookers, kitchen utensils, aluminum circles, and strips, faced allegations of maintaining various sets of invoices for different products. The Commissioner confirmed duty demands and imposed penalties without considering the appellant's submissions. The appellant argued that their activities did not amount to manufacturing as they only reduced the size of cold-rolled products and did not undertake hardening processes. They cited previous successful challenges against similar claims by the Department. The appellant emphasized that they followed proper procedures, including filing declarations of clearances and maintaining permissions for different sets of invoices.On the merits, the appellant contended that their processes did not involve hardening as defined in the Central Excise Tariff Act. They highlighted technical literature indicating that hardening required specific heat treatment processes, which they did not perform. The appellant also mentioned instances where duty was paid on size-reduced products due to mistaken invoicing for Modvat credit purposes. They argued that the Department's claims were unfounded and that the Adjudicating Authority did not consider their arguments properly.In response, the Departmental Representative argued that the appellant did engage in hardening processes, citing the use of different sets of invoices for products with varying hardness levels. They claimed that the appellant did not declare these processes and that scrap generated during manufacturing was dutiable. The Departmental Representative also raised concerns about the appellant's trading activities involving scrap materials.The Tribunal analyzed the arguments from both sides and focused on the technical aspects of the case. They noted that the Adjudicating Authority failed to consider the technical literature and certificates provided by the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized the need to assess whether the cold rolling processes equated to the hardening or tempering processes mentioned in the Central Excise Tariff. Due to this technical complexity, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the Adjudicating Authority for further examination. The Tribunal allowed the appeals for remand, providing an opportunity for the appellant to address all issues, including limitation and penalties, before the Adjudicating Authority.