TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1980 (9) TMI 274
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll as the oral submissions made by Shri J. Banerjee and Mrs. Malini Sud, counsels for the appellants who accompanied by two representatives of the appellant's firm were granted a personal hearing at New Delhi on 9-7-1980. A written note filed at the time of personal hearing has also been considered. 2. The appellants manufacture Aluminium Conductors falling under Central Excise Tariff Item 33-B o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ontention, they have relied upon various High Courts and Supreme Court decisions suck as in Delhi Cloth Mills, 1977 E.L.T. (J 199) = (AIR 1963 SC 79), Garware Nylon Ltd. v. Union of India [1980 E.L.T. 249 (Bom)], and Dy. Commissioner Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Ernakulam v. Pio Food Packers [1980 E.L.T. 343 (SC)]. 5. In essence, the appellants have pleaded that all processing cannot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...." and are disposed off by the appellants as scrap. Obviously, this material cannot be treated as "goods manufactured in terms of the statutes." 8. In this context the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd., 1977 E.L.T. (J 199) = A.I.R. 1963 Supreme Court 791 is relevant, and the passage runs thus :- "'Manufacture' implies a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... But something more is necessary......There must be transformation; a new and different article must emerge, having a distinctive name, character or use." 9. If, therefore, even if it is held that something new has emerged it can as argued by the appellants, be no more than scrap which is more expressly covered by Tariff Item 27(a) (i) of the Central Excise Tariff. 10. The Board feels that the ....