TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (3) TMI 466
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rails is sharpened slightly and smoothened as per the specifications. The Commissioner, under the impugned order, held the impugned products as excisable goods as stock-rails and tongue rails have a connotation distinct from ordinary rails; that these are understood in Commercial parlance as distinct commodities; that stock-rails/tongue rails are meant to perform the specification of providing smooth movement of trains at switch expansion joints which ordinary rails cannot perform; that check rails mentioned specifically in HSN Explanatory Notes, are also obtained from rough rails and accordingly the impugned goods are also excisable; that just become two products are classification under the same heading or sub-heading, it does not automatically mean that they are not distinct or that the process of conversion from one form to the other does not amount to manufacture. He relied upon the decision in the case of Laminated Packagings (P) Ltd v. C.C.E., 1990 (49) E.L.T. 326 (S.C.). 3. Shri M. Chandrasekharan, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that tongue rail is a tapered movable rail, tapered at one end, a pair of which with necessary connections and fittings form a switch; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also contended that the demand is hit by time limit; that show-cause notice was issued on 4-3-1997 for demanding Central Excise Duty for the period from 1989-90 to 1994-95; that period upto January, 1992 is even beyond the period of 5 years from one date of issue of the notice and as such demand of duty amounting to Rs. 8.38 lakh is void ab initio as there is no provision in the Central Excise Act for raising a demand of duty beyond the period of five years; that the present show cause notice has been issued in supersession of the earlier three show cause notices and the period of limitation has to be computed with regard to the present notice dated 4-3-1997. He relied on the decision in National Organic Chemical Industries v. C.C.E., 1987(30) E.L.T. 463 (T), which has been upheld by the Supreme Court as reported in 1996 (84) E.L.T. (A167). He emphasised that the issue of exigibility of tongue rail and stock rail was raised for the first time in notice dated 4-3-1997; that though the said notice has been issued as per remand order, the provisions of section 11A of the Central Excise Act cannot be side-lined and the limitation has to be considered from the date of issue of notice; t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....site. The Tribunal in Richardson and Cruddas case, relying upon Supreme Court's decision in Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, 1985 (20) E.L.T. 179 held that process of conversion of iron and steel products into columns, purlins, bracings, rafters amounted to a process of manufacture since the resultant goods had a distinct name, character and use different from the raw materials. The learned SDR also relied upon the decision in the case of CCE, New Delhi v. Shivaji Industries, 1999 (113) E.L.T. 500 (T) = 1999 (34) RLT 612 (CEGAT) in which it was held that process of making steel tubes into tubular steel poles amounts to manufacture, following the decision in Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. CCE, 1985 (21) E.L.T. 548 (T). Reliance was also placed on the following decisions :- (i) Advance Radio Masts Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad - 1997 (91) E.L.T. 683. (ii) Brakes Indis Ltd. v. Superintendent, Central Excise - 1998 (101) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.). Drilling, trimming and chamfering of brake lining blanks was held to be amounting to manufacture as without such process bra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of both the sides. Under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, duty of excise shall be levied and collected on all excisable goods which are produced or manufactured in India. The duty of excise is leviable only if a product has been either produced or manufactured. The Apex Court in the leading judgment in the case of Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills, 1977 (1) E.L.T. (J 199) (S.C.) held that 'the word "manufacutre" used as a verb is generally understood to mean as "bringing into existence a new substance", and does not mean merely "to produce some change in a substance however minor in consequence the change may be." The Supreme Court referred to the following passage quoted in Permanent Edition of Words & Phrases from an American judgment - "Manufacture implies a change, but every change of an article is the result of treatment labour and manipulation. But something more is necessary and there must be transformation; a new and different article must emerge having a distinctive name, character or use." In Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. M/s. Pio Food Packers - 1980 (6) E.L.T. 343 (S.C.) the Court further observed "with each process suffered, the original co....