2005 (2) TMI 273 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules in favor of appellant, finding no liability for Central Excise duty on winding coils

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that the winding coils were not liable for Central Excise duty. It was established that the ... Dutiability Issues:1. Classification of winding coils under Central Excise Tariff2. Whether the appellant's activity constitutes manufacturing3. Applicability of Central Excise duty on winding coilsAnalysis:1. The main issue in this case is the classification of winding coils under the Central Excise Tariff. The appellant argued that they are not manufacturing or clearing winding coils, but are only repairing industrial motors/transformers by replacing defective parts with raw materials like super enameled copper wire/strip/bars. The Revenue contended that the coils are traded in the market and sold by the appellant to other/sister concerns. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant was only fabricating coils during the repair process and not clearing them as separate goods, relying on a previous decision regarding coils fabricated during transformer repair not being considered as goods liable for Central Excise duty.2. Another issue raised was whether the appellant's activity constitutes manufacturing. The appellant maintained that they were only repairing motors/transformers and not manufacturing winding coils as a separate product. The Tribunal agreed with this argument, emphasizing that the coils were fabricated as part of the repair process and not sold as standalone goods, citing a decision where coils fabricated during transformer repair were not considered goods liable for Central Excise duty.3. Lastly, the question of the applicability of Central Excise duty on winding coils was addressed. The Tribunal, based on previous decisions and the specific circumstances of the case, concluded that since the appellant was only repairing old and used motors/transformers and not manufacturing or clearing winding coils as separate goods, the demand for duty on the winding coils was not justified. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.