2008 (1) TMI 361 - AT - Central Excise

Repair of Transformers Not Taxable: Appellate Tribunal Decision

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore held that the repair of transformers, specifically the rewinding of coils, does not amount to the creation of new ... Manufacture - Whether repair of transformers can be held to bring into existence new goods – Held, no - held that the act of rewinding of coil is not an act of manufacture and it does not bring into existence new goods - held that separate coil does not come into existence while converting the DPC Wires – appeal of revenue is rejected Issues:1. Whether the repair of transformers brings into existence new goods.2. Whether coils arising from the repair of transformers are marketable and hence dutiable under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.Issue 1: Repair of Transformers and New GoodsThe appeal revolved around the question of whether the repair of transformers constitutes the creation of new goods. The Commissioner (A) upheld that repairing transformers, specifically the rewinding of coils, does not amount to manufacturing new goods. This decision was supported by various judgments, including the case of Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. CCE, Chandigarh. The Tribunal examined the process of coil winding and concluded that the coils cannot be considered 'goods' under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal emphasized that for an item to be classified as 'goods,' it must be marketable and capable of being bought and sold independently. The Tribunal found that the coils generated during transformer repair were not marketable as standalone commodities, therefore not constituting new goods.Issue 2: Marketability of Coils and Duty LiabilityThe second issue focused on the marketability of coils resulting from transformer repair and their liability under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Department argued that the coils used in transformer repair were excisable and should be subject to duty under chapter sub-heading 8504.00. However, the Tribunal referenced previous decisions, such as CCE, Indore Vs. Gwalior Electrical Industries, to support the position that coils made from DPC wires during transformer repair did not qualify as 'goods' and were not marketable. The Tribunal cited various judgments to reinforce the stance that no new coil emerged during the repair process. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's contention that a new product arose, emphasizing that the coils did not meet the criteria of being marketable goods. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, aligning with previous rulings and affirming that the coils from transformer repair were not subject to duty as they did not constitute new, marketable goods.In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore centered on the non-creation of new goods through transformer repair, specifically the coils generated during the process. The Tribunal's analysis emphasized the lack of marketability of these coils as standalone commodities, leading to the decision that they were not dutiable under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The ruling was based on a thorough examination of relevant precedents and legal principles surrounding the classification of goods and the manufacturing process in the context of transformer repair activities.