Cutting, boring, beveling, threading operations on seamless pipes constitute manufacturing under Section 2(f), making products liable to excise duty.

CESTAT Ahmedabad held that cutting, boring, beveling, and threading operations on seamless pipes/tubes to manufacture drill pipes/rods constituted manufacturing under Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944, making products liable to excise duty. The tribunal confirmed duty demand but remanded spindle subs/connectors demand to adjudicating authority for verification of duty payment claims. Confiscation was denied as goods were already removed. Personal penalty of Rs. 5 lacs on director was upheld for knowingly evading duty obligations. Appeal disposed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the processes undertaken by the appellant amounted to 'manufacture' under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Classification of the product under the correct tariff heading.
3. Legality of the demand of Rs. 9,89,159/- for Spindle Subs/Bits Subs/Connectors.
4. Validity of the confiscation of goods.
5. Applicability of the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act.
6. Imposition of penalty on the appellant company and its director under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Summary:

1. Manufacture Under Section 2(f):
The Tribunal examined the processes undertaken by the appellant, which included cutting, boring, beveling, threading, and welding of seamless pipes and connectors to produce drill rods. It was concluded that these processes amounted to 'manufacture' as defined under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, since the resultant goods had distinct characteristics and marketability.

2. Classification of Product:
The appellant argued that the classification of the product under CETH 73042390 was incorrect. However, the Tribunal found that the classification was appropriate as the processes resulted in a distinct product known as drill rods, which were classifiable under the specified tariff heading.

3. Demand of Rs. 9,89,159/-:
The Tribunal remanded the issue of the demand of Rs. 9,89,159/- for Spindle Subs/Bits Subs/Connectors to the adjudicating authority for verification of whether the appellant had paid appropriate duty on these goods, as the facts could not be verified at this stage.

4. Confiscation of Goods:
The Tribunal agreed with the adjudicating authority that goods already removed and not available for confiscation cannot be confiscated. Therefore, the confiscation order was set aside.

5. Extended Period of Limitation:
The Tribunal found that the appellant had mis-declared facts and suppressed information, justifying the invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The demand for the extended period was upheld.

6. Imposition of Penalty:
The Tribunal upheld the penalty of Rs. 5 Lacs imposed on Shri Sanjay Jayantilal Gandhi, Director (Commercial), under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, finding that he was aware of the excisable nature of the goods and their clearance without payment of duty.

Conclusion:
The appeals were disposed of with the Tribunal upholding the findings of manufacture, appropriate classification, and penalties, while remanding the issue of the demand of Rs. 9,89,159/- for verification. The confiscation order was set aside due to the unavailability of goods.

---