TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 793
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lywood indicating it as "Marine Plywood" and sell in the market. 2. Revenue's contention is that the imported goods are Decorative Plywood while the final product is marine plywood. Further marine plywood is classifiable under 44123140 if meeting ISI specification. However, since the plywood in this case are not meeting the Indian Standards Specification, these are classifiable under 44123190. According to Revenue the final product is "marine plywood" and since a new commodity with different name, character and use has emerged, activity of the appellant amounts to manufacture and final product is chargeable to excise duty. 3. The appellant's contention is that they have imported marine plywood and it is by mistake that the CHA has classified these under 44123110 instead of correct classification under 44123190. Learned Advocate for the appellant contended the goods imported by them are not decorative plywood. Decorative plywood is thinner in thickness and decorative on one side. What they have imported is marine plywood but since it is not confirming to Indian Standard Specifications "IS 710-1976" these cannot be considered as marine plywood to be classifiable under 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....212) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.) 6. We have considered the rival submission. The short point to be decided is whether the process undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture. There is no dispute that the goods imported are plywood. The process undertaken is only dipping the imported plywood into a boiling hot chemical solution consisting of Sodium Bicarbonate, Boric Acid and Copper Sulphate mixed in water and thereafter drying. Undoubtedly, the quality of the imported plywood improves. Final Product thus obtained is being sold as marine plywood. We find that learned Advocate for the appellant has quoted the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-II Vs. Osnar Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2012 (276) E.L.T. 162 (S.C.). In the said case polymers and additives were added to heated bitumen resulting in emergence of polymer modified bitumen and crumbled rubber modified bitumen. The resultant products have additional properties and make bitumen more suitable for road making. In this context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "14. Thus, the question which falls for consideration in all these appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he process indicated is to amount to manufacture. To start with the product was edible vegetable oil. Even after the refining, it remains edible vegetable oil. As actual manufacture has not taken place, the deeming provision cannot, be brought into play in the absence of it being specifically stated that the process amounts to manufacture." 17. Then again, in S.R. Tissues Pvt. Ltd. (supra), a question arose whether slitting and cutting of toilet tissue paper on aluminium foil amounted to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Act. Answering the question in the negative, this Court had observed thus :- "15.....In order to make Section 2(f) applicable, the process of cutting/slitting is required to be recognized by the legislature as a manufacture under the chapter note or the section note to Chapter 48. For example, the cutting and slitting of thermal paper is deemed to be "manufacture" under Note 13 to Chapter 48. Similarly, Note 3 to Chapter 37 refers to cutting and slitting as amounting to manufacture in the case of photographic goods. However, slitting and cutting of toilet tissue paper on aluminium foil has not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut oil is not groundnut oil. It would undoubtedly be very bad groundnut oil but still it would be groundnut oil and if so it does not seem to accord with logic that when the quality of the oil is improved in that its resistance to the natural processes of deterioration through oxidation is increased, it should be held not to be oil." (Emphasis supplied by us) 20. In Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. (supra), yet another Constitution Bench, exploring the concept of manufacture echoed the following views: "14......The word `manufacture' 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. This distinction is well brought about in a passage thus quoted in Permanent Edition of Words and Phrases, Vol. 26, from an American judgment. The passage runs thus:- "Manufacture implies a change, but every change is not manufacture and yet every change of an article is the result of ....