TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (12) TMI 730
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le to excise duty. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of galvanised plain coil/sheet, galvanised corrugated sheets falling under Chapter 72. The appellant filed a declaration of the products under Rule 173B. It was felt that the items viz. galvanised plain sheets are classifiable under Chapter Headings 7210.19 and 7212.19 and corrugated sheets are classifiable under 7212.11 and 7210.11 and the inputs viz. CR coils out of which these products are manufactured is classifiable under 7209.11 having distinct identity and character and are, therefore, different manufactured product and liable to excise duty as against the claim of the appellants at nil rate of duty. Accordingly, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heet in one direction for the purpose of making the sheet more rigid and for giving increased stiffness so as to be more suitable for roofing and walling; that these processes do not amount to manufacture as no new product with distinct name, character and use comes into existence; that in the case of CCE v. Kamani Engineering Corporation Ltd. reported in 1989 (39) E.L.T. 437 (T), it was held that the process of galvanisation does not bring into existence any new product and as such this process does not amount to manufacture; that the CBEC vide Circular No. 19/10/94-CX., dated 9-2-94 has clarified that galvanisation does not amount to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act; that the Gujarat High Court in the case of Stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....artment has nothing on record to show that corrugated sheet is a different product. 4. Countering the arguments, learned DR submitted that it is well settled law that a process or series of processes amount to manufacture if a commercially known product with definite name, character and use emerges as a result of the processes; that in the present matter the appellants in addition to the process of galvanisation are undertaking the process of corrugation that changes the name, character and use of the product; after the process, the product becomes corrugated sheets which are used differently such as for the purpose of providing roof; that the corrugated sheets are well known products in the trade and they are treated as different f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; that the learned DR fairly concedes in his opening arguments that the process of galvanisation does not amount to manufacture; that the plain sheet has multifarious uses whereas corrugated sheet cannot be used for different purposes; corrugated sheets are distinct commodity as there is essentially a physical change in them and as such they are excisable and they are never sold in coil forms; that they are sold piece-wise. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of both sides, perused the records and the case laws cited by them. As far as the process of galvanisation is concerned it has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. State of Kerala reported in 1989 (42) E.L.T. 513 (S.C.) tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and use. Applying the test of manufacture laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd., 1998 (97) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.), the process of corrugation brings into existence a new product and as such the process of corrugation amounts to manufacture and corrugated sheet is liable to excise duty. The decision in the case of Shah Veljibhai Motichand (supra) is not applicable as the issue involved therein was whether corrugated iron sheets were a form of iron or an article of iron and whether covered by Entry 80 of Schedule B or Entry 15 of Schedule B to Bombay Sales Tax Act. It is seen from the decision that Entry 15 of Schedule B relating to iron and steel only included primary products of the rolling mill....