Paper cutting not manufacturing under Central Excise Act. Tribunal upholds decision, emphasizes activity not constituting manufacture.

The Tribunal held that cutting and slitting paper does not amount to manufacture under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The activity of converting paper rolls into sheets does not change the paper's identity, thus not meeting the definition of manufacture. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that cutting and slitting paper does not constitute manufacture, despite misclassification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

---

---

Issues: Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; Whether cutting and slitting of paper amounts to manufacture under Central Excise Act, 1944.

Classification of Goods Issue:
The appeal challenged the Order-in-Appeal allowing the respondent's appeal against a show cause notice proposing excise duty demand for wrongly classifying cut paper under Heading 48.20 instead of sub-heading 4802.90. The respondent argued that cutting paper into sheets does not amount to manufacture, citing judgments like UOI vs. J.G.Glass Industries Ltd. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal based on this argument. The Revenue contended that the product was misclassified, making the exemption inapplicable. However, the Tribunal held that the activity of cutting and slitting paper does not change its identity, thus not constituting manufacture under section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, citing settled judgments that cutting paper into sheets does not amount to manufacture.

Manufacture Issue:
The core issue revolved around whether the respondent's activity of cutting and slitting paper from paper rolls constitutes manufacture under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The respondent argued that even if the goods were misclassified, the activity itself did not amount to manufacture, hence no excise duty should be demanded. The Commissioner (Appeals) agreed, relying on judgments from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Tribunal. The Tribunal concurred, stating that the mere conversion of paper rolls into sheets through cutting and slitting does not alter the paper's identity, thus not meeting the definition of manufacture. Citing previous judgments, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that cutting and slitting paper does not amount to manufacture.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the issues of classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and whether the activity of cutting and slitting paper constitutes manufacture under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal's decision was based on the understanding that the identity of the paper remains unchanged through the process of cutting and slitting, leading to the conclusion that such activity does not amount to manufacture.

---