Court rules cutting and polishing marble not manufacturing under Excise Law. Petitioner denied Cenvat credit.

The court dismissed all writ petitions, ruling that the process of cutting and polishing marble and granite does not constitute manufacturing under the Excise Law. Consequently, the petitioner was not entitled to Cenvat credit. The decision in Aman Marble Industries (P) Ltd. was deemed applicable, affirming that cutting marble blocks into slabs does not amount to manufacture. The court upheld the orders denying the petitioner's claim for credit and rebate, in line with the Aman Marble precedent.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the process of cutting and polishing marble and granite amounts to manufacture.
2. Entitlement of the petitioner to avail Cenvat credit.
3. Applicability of the decision in Aman Marble Industries (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise.
4. Impact of the decision in Income Tax Officer v. M/s. Arihant Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd. on the current case.
5. Legality of orders passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, and Government of India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the process of cutting and polishing marble and granite amounts to manufacture:
The petitioner argued that the process of cutting and polishing marble and granite constitutes a manufacturing process under Chapter 25 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. However, the Apex Court in Aman Marble Industries (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise held that cutting marble blocks into slabs does not amount to manufacture, as no new and distinct commercial product comes into existence. This precedent was reaffirmed, indicating that the process described by the petitioner does not qualify as manufacturing under the Excise Law.

2. Entitlement of the petitioner to avail Cenvat credit:
The petitioner claimed entitlement to Cenvat credit for capital goods used in the manufacturing process. The respondents contended that since marble slabs became non-excisable after the decision in Aman Marble, the petitioner could not utilize the credit lying in balance. The court found that the petitioner was not entitled to Cenvat credit post the decision in Aman Marble, as the process did not amount to manufacture, and thus, no vested right to avail the credit existed.

3. Applicability of the decision in Aman Marble Industries (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise:
The decision in Aman Marble was central to the case, establishing that cutting marble blocks into slabs does not constitute manufacture. This decision was held applicable, and the court rejected the petitioner's argument that the process should be considered manufacturing for excise purposes.

4. Impact of the decision in Income Tax Officer v. M/s. Arihant Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd. on the current case:
The petitioner relied on the decision in Income Tax Officer v. M/s. Arihant Tiles & Marbles, where the process was considered manufacturing or production under Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act. The court distinguished this case, noting that the definition of "production" under the Income Tax Act is broader than "manufacture" under the Excise Act. Therefore, the decision in Arihant Tiles was not applicable to the excise context.

5. Legality of orders passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, and Government of India:
The court upheld the orders passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, and the Government of India, which denied the petitioner's claim for Cenvat credit and rebate. The court found no error in these orders, as they were consistent with the decision in Aman Marble.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed all the writ petitions, concluding that the process described by the petitioner does not amount to manufacture under the Excise Law, and thus, the petitioner was not entitled to Cenvat credit. The decision in Aman Marble was held applicable, and the orders passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, and the Government of India were upheld.

---