Cutting jumbo rolls not 'manufacture' under Central Excise laws

The Tribunal concluded that cutting and slitting of jumbo rolls into smaller sizes did not amount to 'manufacture' under Central Excise laws. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed for lacking merit.

---

---

Issues:
- Whether cutting and slitting of jumbo rolls of self adhesive rolls amount to 'manufacture' under Central Excise lawsRs.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged an Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Belapur Commissionerate, which held that the cutting and slitting of jumbo rolls of self adhesive rolls did not amount to 'manufacture.' The appellant argued that the process resulted in a new commodity with distinctive characteristics, citing a Supreme Court decision where a similar process was considered 'manufacture.' The Revenue contended that substantial value addition and the use of capital goods indicated a manufacturing activity. However, the respondent argued that a previous Tribunal decision and Supreme Court rulings established that such processes did not constitute 'manufacture.'

The Tribunal examined various legal precedents, including decisions by the Supreme Court and the Tribunal itself, regarding similar processes involving cutting and slitting of different materials. It was noted that the value addition alone could not determine the emergence of a new product with distinct characteristics. The Tribunal also highlighted that certain items in the Central Excise Tariff Act were deemed as 'manufacture' under Section 2(f) of the Act, but the specific products in question were not included in this list. The absence of specific Chapter Notes indicating cutting and slitting as 'manufacture' for the relevant products further supported the conclusion that the legislative intent did not consider these processes as 'manufacture.'

Based on the legal and factual analysis, the Tribunal concluded that cutting and slitting of jumbo rolls into smaller sizes did not amount to 'manufacture' under Central Excise laws. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed for lacking merit.

---