2010 (4) TMI 842 - HC - Central Excise

High Court upholds ruling on aluminum panels manufacturing, emphasizing distinct commercial significance

The High Court overturned the Tribunal's decision and upheld the Addl. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) ruling in favor of the revenue. It ... Whether cutting of aluminium angles, plates to size, drilling holes etc. would bring into existence new product - appellant contends that tribunal was not right in concluding find that the assessee was not manufacturing a new product as known in the market and thereby allowing the appeal by granting the relief under the Act – Held that:- cutting, grooving of the Aluminium sheet to make Aluminium composite panels amounts to manufacture of a distinct product commercially known as different. order of the Tribunal is set aside and the orders of the Addl. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) is restored by answering the substantial question of law in favour of the revenue and against the assessee, Accordingly, the appeal is allowed Issues:1. Challenge to order regarding excise duty on cutting and routing of aluminum panels.2. Maintainability of appeal based on duty rate determination.3. Dispute over whether the activity constitutes manufacturing.4. Interpretation of whether new product emerges from the process.5. Application of legal principles on distinct commercial identity of products.Issue 1: Challenge to Excise Duty OrderThe High Court addressed the appeal challenging the order passed by CESTAT at Bangalore regarding the liability of excise duty on the cutting and routing of aluminum panels. The main question raised was whether these activities constitute manufacturing under the Central Excise Act, 1944.Issue 2: Maintainability of AppealA preliminary objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the appeal, arguing that the determination of the duty rate for such manufacturing activities falls under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as per specific provisions of the Central Excise Act.Issue 3: Manufacturing Activity DisputeThe appellant contended that the respondent was indeed engaged in manufacturing a new product, contrary to the Tribunal's finding that no manufacturing activity was carried out. The original and appellate authorities had considered the activities of the respondent and concluded that they amounted to manufacturing.Issue 4: Emergence of New ProductThe Court analyzed the process carried out by the respondent, involving cutting and grooving of aluminum composite panels, leading to the creation of a new product with distinct commercial identity. The product that emerged after these operations was deemed different from the purchased aluminum panels, indicating a manufacturing activity.Issue 5: Legal Principles ApplicationReferring to legal precedents, including judgments by the Apex Court, the High Court highlighted that if a new identifiable product emerges from a process, even if falling under the same category, it is subject to taxation. The Court emphasized the importance of a product having a new identity, character, and use to be considered dutiable.In conclusion, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order, reinstating the decision of the Addl. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) in favor of the revenue. The Court held that the cutting and grooving of aluminum sheets to create composite panels constituted manufacturing of a distinct product with commercial significance, aligning with legal principles and precedents.