TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (12) TMI 203
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....posed to be anti-corrosive treatment for giving proper life than painting, would amount to a process of manufacture and therefore, the appellants are liable to pay excise duty? and as to whether there has been suppression by not declaring the activity to the department, thus attracting proviso to Section 11A? Whether 24 M.S. Tanks under seizure are liable for confiscation and release on payment of fine besides penalty? and as to whether the order passed by Addl. Collector confiscating land, building, plant/machinery under Rule 173Q(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 is justified and as to whether they are liable to pay redemption fine of Rs. 25,000/- on that account? 2. By show cause notice dated 20-9-1988, the department alleged that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tated that they have recovered labour charges from April, 1987 to Aug., 1987 and hence they had not recovered excise duty. They filed the reply to show cause notice dated 25-10-1988 wherein they stated that they received M.S. tanks from their customers for rubber lining as anti-corrosive treatment, which increases the life of the tank. They were making rubber compound for use in their factory, which is not sold nor used for trade compound or tyres. Since they were not manufacturing tanks, they requested that value of tanks should not be included in turnover and hence their value was less than Rs. 7.5 lakhs. Hence no duty was liable to be paid. They stated that they had Central Excise licence and they filed classification list for compoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bunal's judgment rendered in the case of Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise as reported in 1990 (45) E.L.T. 457, wherein it was held that the steel pipes subjected to the process of lining and coating with cement did not bring a change in an essential character of pipes and pipes remained as pipes and hence there was no process of manufacture to hold that a new commodity comes into existence. He also referred to the judgment rendered in the case of Tansi Engineering Works v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore as reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 407 wherein Tribunal held that the two ingredients of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act are required to be satisfied to come to conclusion that there is a process of ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case of Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. and that of Tansi Engineering Works. The judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lathia Industrial Supplies Co. Pvt. Ltd. is an identical issue, wherein re-rubberising and relining of old and used rollers was held to be not a process of manufacture. In the present case, also the appellants carried out a process of anti-corrosive treatment of rubber lining on tanks. Tanks do not become a separate and a new commodity, known separately in trade. The tanks remain tanks. The process carried out by the appellants is a process, which does not bring into existence a new product, neither the process is an incidental or ancillary process for completion of a manufactured product. The department ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y/building and imposing of penalty. In the case of Jupiter Engravers, Hon'ble Bombay High Court noticed that copper rollers are not marketable but the same are marketed only after the process of engraving and that the copper rollers acquired commercial value therefore and therefore, in that context, it was held that the process should be treated as a manufacturing process. The department has not shown in the case that the process carried out by the appellant brings into existence any new product and hence this judgment is clearly distinguishable. In the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Vee Kay Electricals it was noticed that bare G.I. Steel Wires falling under sub-heading 7217.90 and PVC coated insulated wires falling under sub-hea....