Galvanizing Steel Equals Manufacturing: Excise Duty UpheldManufacture - galvanizing of the steel products - Job-work - Revenue-neutral situation - Held that:- From the various jurisdictional pronouncements, it has been held that the activity of galvanizing of the steel items amount to manufacture and the same has been stated in the Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act - Admittedly, the appellant is engaged in the activity of galvanizing which amounts to manufacture. The appellant is liable to pay duty, therefore, demand of duty... ... ... Issues Involved:
1. Whether galvanizing of steel products amounts to manufacture under the Central Excise Act, 1985?
2. Whether duty, interest, and penalty rightly imposed on the appellant?
3. Whether the appellant is entitled to Cenvat Credit as a job worker?

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant contested that galvanizing of steel items does not constitute manufacture, hence no duty payment is required. However, the Revenue argued that galvanizing is indeed a manufacturing activity. The Tribunal referred to Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act and various precedents, concluding that galvanizing of steel items does amount to manufacture. Consequently, the Tribunal held the appellant liable to pay duty for galvanizing activities.

Issue 2:
The impugned order confirmed the demand for duty, interest, and penalty on the appellant. Since the appellant failed to pay the duty on time, the penalty was upheld. The Tribunal found no error in the imposition of duty, interest, and penalty, as the appellant was engaged in manufacturing activities subject to duty payment. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.

Issue 3:
Regarding the appellant's claim for Cenvat Credit as a job worker, the Tribunal did not delve into this aspect in detail in the judgment. The Tribunal's decision primarily focused on the liability of the appellant to pay duty for galvanizing activities. As a result, the issue of Cenvat Credit entitlement was not explicitly addressed in the judgment.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld that galvanizing of steel products amounts to manufacture under the Central Excise Act, 1985, thereby confirming the duty, interest, and penalty imposed on the appellant. The judgment emphasized the liability of the appellant to pay duty for such manufacturing activities, leading to the dismissal of the appellant's appeal. Manufacture - galvanizing of the steel products - Job-work - Revenue-neutral situation - Held that:- From the various jurisdictional pronouncements, it has been held that the activity of galvanizing of the steel items amount to manufacture and the same has been stated in the Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act - Admittedly, the appellant is engaged in the activity of galvanizing which amounts to manufacture. The appellant is liable to pay duty, therefore, demand of duty alongwith interest is confirmed and as the appellant did not pay the duty in time - the penalty on the appellant is also confirmed - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. Jain Steel Industries. Versus CCE Chandigarh.
Central Excise
2017 (10) TMI 1360 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH - TMI
CESTAT CHANDIGARH - AT
Dated:- 31-10-2017
Appeal No. E/1251/2009 - FINAL ORDER NO. 62060/2017
Central Excise
Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Ms. Surbhi Sinha, for the Appellant(s) Sh. Harvinder Singh, AR for the Respondent(s) ORDER Per: Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the demand of duty has been confirmed alongwith interest and penalty of equivalent to duty is imposed on them. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the business of galvanizing of the steel products falling under Chapter 72 and 73 of the Central Excise Act, 1985. The case of the Revenue is that the galvanizing is an activity of manufacture, therefore, they required to pay duty but the case of the appellant is that as galvanizing of the steel items does not amounts to manufacture, therefore, they are required to pay duty. It is also contended that the appellants are job worker therefore, if whatever duty they have to pay, the same is entitled to Cenvat Credit to the manufacturer. Therefore, it is revenue neutral situation. 3. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 4. We find that from the various jurisdictional pronouncements, it has been held that the activity of galvanizing of the steel items amount to manufacture and the same has been stated in the Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. 5. Admittedly, the appellant is engaged in the activity of galvanizing which amounts to manufacture, in that circumstances, appellant is liable to pay duty, therefore, demand of duty alongwith interest is confirmed and as the appellant did not pay the duty in time, therefore, the penalty on the appellant is also confirmed. 6. In that circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, the same is upheld and the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in the open court)
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements, Orders