Tribunal: Fitting lenses into frames not manufacturing under Central Excise Act. Time-barred demand & unjust penalty overturned.

The Tribunal held that fitting lenses into frames to create spectacles does not amount to manufacture under the Central Excise Act. The demand for Central Excise Duty was deemed time-barred as the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. Additionally, the penalty imposed on Ms. Susila Girisan was found unjustified. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential reliefs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the activity of fitting lenses into frames to create spectacles amounts to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Whether the demand for Central Excise Duty is sustainable on the grounds of limitation.
3. Whether the penalty imposed on Ms. Susila Girisan under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is justified.

Summary:

1. Manufacture of Spectacles:
The primary issue was whether the activity of fitting lenses into frames to create spectacles constitutes "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The department alleged that this activity resulted in a new marketable commodity, "spectacles," thus attracting Central Excise Duty. The appellant argued that the lenses and frames were separately purchased, duty-paid items, and the activity of fitting them together did not amount to manufacture. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Titan Company Limited, which held that such an activity does not constitute manufacture. The Tribunal concluded that the activity of fitting lenses into frames does not amount to manufacture and thus, the demand for excise duty could not be sustained.

2. Limitation:
The appellant contended that the demand was time-barred as the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. The Tribunal noted that the appellant was a registered service tax assessee and had disclosed all relevant financial information during audits. The issue was interpretational in nature, and there was no evidence of willful suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued by invoking the extended period of limitation was not sustainable.

3. Penalty on Ms. Susila Girisan:
The Tribunal also addressed the penalty imposed on Ms. Susila Girisan under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. It was argued that Ms. Girisan was not involved in any activities that would attract the provisions of Rule 26, as she was under the bona fide belief that the activity did not amount to manufacture. The Tribunal found merit in this argument and held that the penalty imposed on Ms. Girisan was not justified.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, holding that the activity of fitting lenses into frames does not amount to manufacture, the demand was time-barred, and the penalty on Ms. Susila Girisan was not justified. The appeals were allowed with consequential reliefs.

---