TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 373
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....87 to 31.3.1990. Show cause notice dated 07.07.1992 was issued for demand of Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 49,83,736/- along with a proposal for imposition of penalties under various rules as well as a proposal for confiscation of land, building, plant and machinery used in the manufacture of excisable goods. The appellant was not discharging the Central excise duty payable on the goods viz. alloys of various nonferrous metals, by taking the view that these metals as well as metal alloys remained classified in the same tariff heading up to 13.5.1988, and hence, there can be no manufacture in the conversion of metal into metal alloys. Revenue was of the view that conversion of nonferrous metals into metal alloys would amount to manufa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issued, has not been supplied to them. Consequently the demand raised, on the basis of such documents, cannot be sustained. iv) The appellant had sought cross-examination of the investigating officers which has not been permitted by the adjudicating authority. v) If the process undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture, they will be entitled to the benefit of small-scale industry exemption notification number 175/86 dated 01.03.1986 since they were registered with the Director of Industries. vi) They will also be entitled to the benefit of Modvat credit on inputs and capital goods used in the manufacture of final products, if they are liable to pay Central excise duty on their final products. 3. With ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....EGAT stated that "mere change in physical form of shape or substance does not amount to manufacture". It, therefore, allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Commissioner. The said order is challenged by the Revenue in this Court. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 11. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the Revenue that CEGAT has committed an error of law in holding that the commodity remained one and the same and merely the form was changed and as such there was no "manufacture" and Excise Duty could not be imposed by the Department. 12. The learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that CEGAT was right in holding that there was no change of commod....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is a verb which 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". 15. In Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (1985) 3 SCC 314, it was held that taxable event under Excise Law is "manufacture". The moment there is transformation into a new commodity commercially distinct and separate commodity having its own character and name whether be it the result of one process or several processes, "manufacture" takes place and liability to excise duty under Section 4 is attracted. 16. In Union Carbide India Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., (1986) 2 SCC 547, this Court held that in order to a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also makes it clear which is under Chapter 76. The relevant part reads thus : Chapter 76 Heading No. Sub-Heading No. Description of Goods Rate of Duty 76.01 7601.10 ingots, billets 16% 21. Ingots and Billets are thus two different commercial commodities. They have separate, distinct and identifiable marketability and saleability. The assessee, no doubt, used Aluminium Billets captively but is also selling in open market. We are, therefore, of the view that the Commissioner was right in holding that the assessee was liable to pay Excise Duty and CEGAT was wrong in interfering with the order-in-original. The order of the CEGAT, therefore, is liable to be set aside. 22. For the foregoing reasons, t....