2010 (4) TMI 842

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of law as framed by this court on 4-7-2007 while admitting the appeal : "Whether the appellate tribunal is right in holding that mere cutting of aluminium angles, plates to size, drilling holes etc. would not bring into existence new product and the revenue has not discharged its burden that those goods are marketable items subject to payment of excise duty under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944?" 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the appeal by stating that even if the question as to whether the activity of the respondent-assessee is held to be a manufacturing activity even then the rate of duty applic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n record, it is not in dispute that the respondent assessee has been purchasing aluminium composite panels and on the said panels it has been cutting the same into required size and also grooving the said panels which is called routing. The scope of the work that is done on the said goods is that of fixing the aluminium composite panel comprising polyethylene core sandwiched between two skins of 0.50 mm thick special alloyed sheet and pre-fabricated panels are used for various purpose by cutting them into requisite sizes and also by grooving the said sheets. Said aluminium composite panels are then fixed to the main frame, therefore the question that has to be considered is as to whether the respondent is carrying on manufacturing activity ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... then it is taxable. The same view has been held in other cases also particularly in AIR 1988 SC 518, in the case of TVL A.K. Anwar v. State of Tamil Nadu, wherein it has been opined by the Apex Court that though certain articles are mentioned under the same heading it does not mean that they constitute one commodity. Merely being put under one heading would not make two different commodities single item for the purpose of taxation. 7. As per Circular No. 58/1/2002-CX., dated 15-1-2002 issued by the Board certain clarifications were issued which are as hereunder : "4. The plethora of such judgments appear to have crated some confusion with the assessing officers. The matter has been examined by the Board in consultation with....