TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 891
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be extension claiming classification under sub-heading 8414.91 of the Central Excise Tariff which was also duly approved. A revised classification list was filed by the appellant on 04.01.1989 in which the above named items were not mentioned. Instead, on the reverse of the classification list they declared that they were also engaged in the trading activity of copper tube which they cut and bend to required sizes. They further declared that this process involved non manufacturing activity. The Revenue Officers visited the factory premises, found that the assessee was purchasing duty paid copper tubes and after cutting them into different sizes and bending them, they were also subjecting them to the process of grinding, smoothening etc. and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner based on end use is not proper as has been held by Apex Court in the case of Dunlop India Limited & MRF vs. Union of India and Ors. 1983 ELT 1566 (SC). (iii) There can be no ground for invoking suppression and extended period under Section 11A for demanding duty inasmuch as they have filed classification list dated 04.01.1989 in which they have declared their view that the process undertaken by them to cut and bend the purchased copper tubes is not a manufacturing activity. It was always open to the Department to undertake verification of such declaration. 3. Revenue on the other hand has reiterated the findings of the Commissioner in the impugned order. 4. We have heard Sh. Naveen Mullick, ld. Advocate for the Appellant and Sh. Yog....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade. The above processes have transformed, the copper tubes into new products described as charging tubes, discharge tubes, second tubes etc. which are nothing but parts of gas compressors. These products have character, use and name which are distinctly different from the generic term of copper tubes. We are of the view that the process amounts to manufacture as defined in Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 6. The appellant has vehemently argued that they have declared the processes in their classification list filed on 04.01.1989 in which they have also indicated their view that the processes undertaken by them do not amount to manufacture. Accordingly, they have submitted that no suppression can be attributed to them. We are ....