2025 (9) TMI 1085 - AT - Central Excise

End cuttings, waste and scrap of PVC-insulated copper wire used in wiring harness manufacture are not excisable; no duty payable

CESTAT Ahmedabad (AT) held that end cuttings, waste and scrap of PVC-insulated copper wire arising during manufacture of wiring harnesses are not ... Process amounting to manufacture or not - excisable goods - end cuttings, waste and scrap of PVC insulated copper wires generated during the manufacture of wiring harnesses - dutiability of scrap of copper/PVC wire - HELD THAT:- The issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Vs. CMI Ltd. [2002 (11) TMI 807 - SC ORDER] wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court by relying upon its earlier decision in the case of Finolex Cable upheld the decision of the Tribunal in [1998 (3) TMI 695 - SC ORDER]. The Tribunal in its order had held that end cutting of insulated wires and cables are not excisable and therefore no excise duty is payable. Mumbai Tribunal in the case of the Appellant itself vide Final order No. A/87446/2024 dated 04.12.2024 [2024 (12) TMI 1631 - CESTAT MUMBAI] has decided the very same issue i.e. dutiability of scrap of copper/PVC wire for the period August 2009 to May 2014. There are no reason to deviate from the above findings - appeal allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether end cuttings, waste and scrap of PVC insulated copper wires generated during the manufacture of wiring harnesses constitute 'excisable goods' and amount to 'manufacture' under the Central Excise law. 2. Whether such scrap is classifiable under the tariff heading for copper wire scrap (Chapter heading 7404) and thereby rendered excisable by virtue of tariff entry and the Explanation to Section 2(d). 3. Whether extended period of limitation is invokable for duty recovery where the assessee did not declare clearances of such waste in statutory returns and Daily Stock Accounts. 4. Whether penalty is leviable where there is no positive concealment or suppression of facts by the assessee in relation to non-declaration of such waste/scrap. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Excisability: Whether end cuttings/waste/scrap amount to 'manufacture' and hence excisable Legal framework: The concept of 'manufacture' and excisable goods under Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act requires that a new and different article with distinctive name, character or use emerges from a process; goods specified in the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act are excisable if they result from manufacture. Precedent treatment: The Court relied on prior authoritative decisions of the highest appellate forum which held that end cuttings and similar waste generated from insulated wires and cables do not constitute manufacture and are not excisable. A coordinate bench decision involving identical facts for the same appellant was also followed. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the nature of the waste - end cuttings arising from cutting procured PVC insulated wire during production of wiring harnesses - and found no independent manufacturing process giving rise to a new commodity. The waste was described as residual end pieces of procured inputs, not resulting from any transformation that imparts a new name, character or use distinct from the input material. The Tribunal noted that where waste does not arise out of any manufacturing process but merely comprises end cuttings of raw material, it cannot be equated to an emergent excisable product. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The holding that end cuttings/waste of PVC insulated copper wires, being mere residues of procured inputs and not the result of a manufacturing process creating a distinct commodity, are not excisable goods. Conclusion: The Tribunal concludes that the waste/scrap in question does not amount to manufacture and hence is not liable to central excise duty. Issue 2 - Classification under tariff heading (Chapter 74 / heading for copper scrap) and effect of statutory explanation Legal framework: Classification for excise liability depends on whether goods fall within a tariff entry; Note 8 to Section XV and the tariff entries in Chapter 74 were considered for whether the scrap could be classed as metallic waste/scrap. The Explanation to Section 2(d) (inserted w.e.f. 13.05.2008) expands the meaning of 'goods' to include articles capable of being bought and sold and deems them marketable for purposes of excisability. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal applied binding precedent which had rejected excisability of end cuttings despite tariff entries, emphasizing that a tariff entry alone does not make an item excisable absent manufacture. A co-ordinate bench decision on identical facts was applied to displace the classification argument. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that mere availability of a tariff entry (e.g., for copper scrap) is insufficient where the material did not arise as a distinct product of any manufacturing process. The statutory Note relied upon by the Department (concerning metal scrap) was held inapplicable because it pertains to waste arising from mechanical working of metals, not to end cuttings of insulated wires in the instant manufacturing process. The Explanation to Section 2(d) does not override the prerequisite of emergence of a distinct commodity through manufacture; therefore, classification under Chapter 74 could not be invoked to render the end cuttings excisable when they are not the product of manufacture. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Tariff classification cannot convert mere end cuttings (not resulting from manufacture) into excisable goods; statutory explanation does not negate the requirement of manufacture for excisability. Obiter - Observations on marketability and domestic/international item codes noted by the Department were not accepted as sufficient to create excisability. Conclusion: The Tribunal concludes that the impugned classification under the copper scrap tariff heading is not sustainable and does not render the end cuttings liable to excise duty. Issue 3 - Invocation of extended period of limitation Legal framework: Extended limitation provisions require suppression of facts or willful mis-statement to be invoked; assessment or recovery beyond normal limitation period is permissible only when conditions for extended period are fulfilled. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal referred to precedents requiring positive suppression or concealment to justify extended limitation and noted authorities where failure to furnish information not required by law does not amount to suppression. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the Department's contention of non-declaration in Daily Stock Account and ER1 returns does not automatically equate to suppression of material facts if the nature of the goods (end cuttings) was such that they were not excisable. Where legal duty to declare does not arise, omission to declare cannot be treated as concealment; further, absence of positive acts to mislead was accepted on the facts. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Extended period cannot be invoked in the absence of suppression of material facts or deliberate omission when the impugned goods are not excisable; mere non-filing of returns concerning non-excisable end cuttings does not satisfy the threshold for extended limitation. Conclusion: Extended period of limitation is not invokable on the facts; recovery beyond normal period is not justified. Issue 4 - Levy of penalty for non-declaration where no suppression Legal framework: Penalty under excise law is predicated on culpability - suppression, fraud, or positive concealment - and is not automatic upon detection of duty shortfall if the assessee acted without malafide or positive concealment. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal applied established principles that absence of deliberate concealment or misrepresentation negates imposition of penalty; prior case law distinguishing mere omission from suppression was followed. Interpretation and reasoning: On the facts, the appellants purchased inputs and generated end cuttings as residuals; there was no evidence of fraudulent conduct or deliberate suppression of excisable goods. Given the conclusion that the end cuttings are not excisable, the penal provisions are not attracted. The Tribunal held that non-declaration of non-excisable material does not constitute suppression warranting penalty. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Penalty is not leviable in circumstances where the material is not excisable and there is no evidence of suppression or deliberate concealment. Conclusion: Penalty cannot be imposed on the facts of the case. Cross-References and Interrelation All conclusions are interlinked: the primary determination that the end cuttings are not products of manufacture underpins the decisions on tariff classification, extended limitation and penalty. The Tribunal followed higher court precedent and an identical coordinate bench decision, treating those authorities as decisive on excisability and consequent reliefs. Disposition The Tribunal allowed the appeals and set aside the demands, interest and penalties insofar as they related to the end cuttings/waste/scrap of PVC insulated copper wires, concluding no excise liability arises on the facts considered.