2004 (2) TMI 61

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short CEGAT). 2.Briefly stated the facts are as follows : The Appellants carry on the business of fixing rubber linings on pipes, tanks and other such articles. The articles were supplied to them by their customers. They fixed the lining and returned the articles. They were issued a show-cause-notice claiming that they were manufacturing dutiable goods and that they were not declaring the correct value inasmuch as the value of the articles supplied to them and the packing, forwarding charges and rubber lining charges had not been included in the assessable value. The Appellants' reply was accepted and the Assistant Collector dropped the show cause notice. 3.The Department preferred a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....his distinction is well brought about in a passage thus quoted in Permanent Edition of Words and Phrases, Vol. 26, from an American Judgment. The passage runs thus :- "Manufacture implies a change, but every change is not manufacture and yet every change of an article is the result of treatment, labour and manipulation. But something more is necessary and there must be transformation; a new and different article must emerge having a distinctive name, character and use."." 6.In the case of Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1990 (45) E.L.T. 457 (Tribunal), the question was whether lining and coating steel pipes with cement amounted to changing the character of the pipes and bringing into existence a ne....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rawn from duty paid wire rods were not a different product and that they were not excisable even though they fell under two separate entries. 8.In the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Lal Kunwa Stone Crusher (P) Ltd. reported in [(2000) 3 SCC 525], this Court has held that chips, gitti and stone ballast obtained by crushing stone pipes continued to be stone and that they did not become a separate commodity or item. 9.The above authorities reiterate the well established law that Circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs are binding. The law also is that if a tariff item makes no difference between coated and uncoated goods then the mere process of coating would not amount to manufacture of some new commodity. Merely....