2017 (1) TMI 795 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacturing process not considered new product for Central Excise duty.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the dropping of Central Excise duty demand on the respondent for manufacturing glazed panels. It was ... Manufacture - Section 2 (f) of Central Excise Act, 1944 - glazed panels - whether affixing duty paid processed and pre-cut glasses supplied by the client to the duty paid aluminium frames and panels with the help of sealant results in emergence of new product having new identity, character and use distinct from the inputs, namely, glass cut to size and aluminium frames of required dimensions? Held that: - the duty demand is on glazed panels alleged to have been manufactured by the appellant at site. The Department sought to charge Central Excise duty on glazed panels - We note that such panels emerge stage by stage upon fabrication with bolts, nuts and brackets on the building. The said glazed panels are fabricated and fixed simultaneously as part of civil structure. There is no new marketable product as glazed panel emerging in between in the whole process. It is also clearly recorded in the impugned order that there is no purchase order for such glazed panels by the clients in the present case. In other words, the indivisible works contract talks about installation of glazed panels/curtain wall and not supply of any glazed panels - no manufacture taking place - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues:- Appeal against dropping of Central Excise duty demand on the respondent for manufacturing glazed panels.- Whether affixing duty paid processed glass to aluminium frames constitutes manufacturing under Central Excise Act, 1944.- Interpretation of the term 'manufacture' under Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944.- Reliance on the decision of Tribunal in Mahindra & Mahindra case.- Marketability of the assembled glazed panels as a distinct product.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the dropping of Central Excise duty demand on the respondent for manufacturing glazed panels. The respondent was engaged in the design, fabrication, supply, and installation of curtain wall/structural glazing. The Original Authority had confirmed Central Excise duty on the respondent, which was later dropped by the Commissioner (Appeals) who held that affixing duty paid processed glass to aluminium frames did not result in a new product with a distinct identity. The Revenue contested this decision, claiming that the glazed panels were marketable products and liable for Central Excise duty.2. The main grounds of appeal by the Revenue included the argument that the glazed panels had a unique identity different from their raw materials, citing the Mahindra & Mahindra case. They asserted that assembling the glazed panels at the client's site constituted manufacturing, and duty was liable on such activity. The specially designed aluminium frames were fabricated on-site from duty-paid raw materials, and the duty-paid panels used in erecting curtain walls were known as a separate commodity in the market.3. The parties presented their arguments, with the Revenue emphasizing the marketability of the assembled glazed panels and the respondent highlighting that no new distinct marketable product emerged from the assembly process. The respondent's counsel argued that the components used were specific to the client's requirements and were not marketable separately. The Revenue's reliance on the Mahindra & Mahindra case was challenged by the respondent, stating that the Revenue failed to establish the emergence of a distinct marketable commodity.4. The Tribunal examined the processes undertaken by the respondent, noting that the aluminium frames and pre-cut glasses were parts and components of the glazed panels and did not create a new marketable product when assembled and erected in a civil structure. The impugned order highlighted that the glazed panels did not serve any purpose other than the aluminium frames and glass cut to size, and the marketability of the product needed to be established. The terms of the work order indicated an indivisible contract for installing curtain walls, not for purchasing glazed panels.5. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that the Mahindra & Mahindra case did not apply to the present situation. The duty demand on glazed panels alleged to have been manufactured at the site was dismissed, as no new marketable product emerged during the fabrication and fixing process. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) dropping the Central Excise duty demand on the respondent.