Tribunal rules in favor of appellant, finding no excise duty liability under Central Excise Act 1944.

The Tribunal set aside the decision of the Ld. Commissioner (A) and ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the processes undertaken did not amount to manufacture under the Central Excise Act 1944. The Tribunal emphasized the distinctions in processes and end products compared to a cited case, ultimately determining that the appellant's activities did not attract excise duty liability. The appellant's arguments, supported by previous decisions and legal provisions, were instrumental in convincing the Tribunal to allow the appeal and provide consequential relief.

---

---

Issues:
Taxability under Central Excise Act 1944 - Whether processes amount to manufacture or not.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute over the taxability of the appellant under the Central Excise Act 1944 concerning whether the processes undertaken by the appellant amount to manufacture. Initially, an order in original dated 03.05.2002 was issued, which was set aside by the Tribunal on 31.03.2004, leading to fresh adjudication. Subsequently, the Original authority held that the demand against the appellant was not sustainable. However, on appeal by the Revenue, the Ld. Commissioner (A) set aside the original order and held that the processes undertaken by the appellants amounted to manufacture, resulting in excise duty liability. This decision was challenged by the appellant.

In the appeal, the appellant argued that their processes were different from those in a previous case cited by the Department, emphasizing that they were cutting smaller marble blocks into irregular marble slabs using specific machinery. They contended that the processes were distinct from those in the cited case, resulting in different end products used for different purposes. The appellant also relied on a previous Tribunal decision and a Supreme Court judgment supporting their position.

During the arguments, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant referenced several decisions supporting the appellant's case. Additionally, it was argued that the introduction of note 6 to Chapter 25 Tariff indicated that the processes undertaken by the appellant before a specific date should not be considered as manufacture.

The Ld. AR, on the other hand, reiterated the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (A) and relied on a previous Tribunal decision. After hearing both sides and examining the appeal records, the Tribunal noted that the Ld. Commissioner (A) had not adequately considered the differences in processes and end products between the appellant and the cited case. The Tribunal referenced a previous case where a similar issue was examined and concluded that the processes undertaken by the appellant did not amount to manufacture before a specific date mentioned in the Tariff.

Based on the discussion and analysis, the Tribunal found that the impugned order was not sustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief.

---