TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 1127
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-I, whereunder duty along with interest has been confirmed and equivalent penalty has been imposed on the main Appellant namely M/s. Shiva Kashi Metals & Ferro Alloys, Cuttock. 2. The main issue in the subject Appeals is whether activities carried out by the main Appellant amounts to manufacture or not. 2.1 Briefly stated the facts of the case are that assessee Appellant procured/purchased High Carbon Ferro Chrome (HCFC) Slag. They subjected the same to crushing, grinding, gravity separation by jigging in water and the process repeated till the metals with required purity is obtained. The assessee Appellant contends that the metal has already been manufactured in the furnace and they are simply separating metals from the Slag where it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....put in to jigging tubes in the water. The metal being heavier in gravity settled downs and the slag form a layer on the top. The slag is then removed. This manufacturing process is repeated till the required purity of metal is attained. The prime metal i.e. H.C.F.C. recovered is dried and after drying the metal is packed in to bags and sold as H.C.F.C." (ii) The main contention in the present proceeding is that whether the processes of separation of Ferro Chrome from Slag amounts to manufacture. The appellant states that Ferro Chrome has already been manufactured and it is contained in the slag. The appellant did not manufacture any Ferro Chrome in their godown. They only undertook the process of separation of Ferro Chrome from Sla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugned order and in support relied on the following decisions:- (a) S.N.Sunderson (Minerals) Ltd. v. Supdt.(Prev.), Central Ex. [2002 (143) ELT 483 (SC)] (b) S.N.Sunderson (Minerals) Ltd. v. Supdt.(Prev.), Central Ex. (1995 (75) ELT 273 (M.P.)] 6. After carefully considering the facts on record and the submissions of both sides and the case laws cited, it appears that the assessee Appellant is engaged in purchase of High Carbon Ferro Chrome (HCFC) Slag and making use of physical processes like grinding, crushing, washing, separation and finally bringing out High Carbon Ferro Chrome (HCFC). The assessee's contention is that there is no manufacturing involved and the activities undertaken by them are not covered under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing of Central Excise Tariff. The issue is whether by the processes undertaken by the assessee, a new identifiable, marketable product comes into existence. When the HCFC Slag is an altogether different product, which is subjected to different processes like crushing, grinding, watering etc. and resultant product is only High Carbon Ferro Chrome (HCFC), which has got separate existence in relation to its raw material namely High Carbon Ferro Chrome (HCFC) and is an identifiable product, having independent marketability, then the yardstick of definition of manufacturing given in Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is satisfied. If it is so, the existence or non-existence of Note 4 to Chapter 26 of Central Excise Tariff will not make....