TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1335
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central GST, Jammu, whereby the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal of the Assessee/Respondent and set aside the Order-in-Original. 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the Assessee/Respondent, M/s Gravita Metal Inc., was registered with the Central Excise department and was engaged in the manufacture of Lead Ingots from battery scrap and Lead scrap. The Respondent was also undertaking job work mainly for M/s Gravita Metals ('M/s GM') under Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986. M/s GM processed Pig Lead Ingots (Pure Lead Ingots) and Lead Alloys Ingots mainly from Remelted Lead Ingots and was availing area based exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-CE....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the goods must be manufactured/produced and (iii) such manufacture/production must be in India. He also submits that unless these conditions are satisfied, the duty of excise cannot be levied and hence not payable. 4.2 The learned Authorized Representative further submits that in the present case, M/s GM appeared not to have manufactured the said goods and consequently, duty was not leviable on such goods and the amount shown to have been paid at the time of clearances towards duty cannot be treated as "duty". 5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that issue involved in the present case has already been settled by this Tribunal in the Respondent's own case vide Final Order No. 62014-62016/20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rer. 5.1 The learned Counsel further submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) by following the ratio of the earlier decision of the Tribunal, dated 17.10.2017, has dropped the demand as per law. The said order of the Tribunal has neither been reversed nor stayed and therefore has attained finality. 5.2 The learned Counsel further submits that the department cannot discriminate between assessees. The department's position is untenable in law as the department cannot, on one hand, collect duty treating a particular activity as "manufacture" at one unit, and on the other hand, deny the same characterization at another unit for the same activity merely to deprive the assessee of the exemption benefit under Notification No. 56/2002-CE. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve. 5.6 As regards penalty, the learned Counsel submits that as the issue relates to interpretation of law, the imposition of penalty is not warranted. 6. We have considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material on record as well as the decisions relied upon by the Respondent. We find that the issue involved in the present case is no more res integra and has been settled by the Tribunal in the Respondent's own case for the earlier period vide Final Order No. 62014-62016/2017 dated 17.10.2017 wherein the Tribunal has already held that the activity undertaken by M/s GM amounts to manufacture. M/s GM is engaged in purification of unrefined lead to refined lead and thereafter manufacturing the alloy lead. Furth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....self does not amount to manufacture, it still qualifies as being "in relation to manufacture" and therefore, they are entitled to benefit of Notification No. 214/86-CE. 9. We may refer to the relevant findings of the Tribunal in its Final Order dated 17.10.2017 passed in Respondent's own case for the previous period: "18. ................. Further, in the case of Servo-Med Industries Pvt Ltd, the Hon'ble Apex Court set-forth the following tests to found out whether the activity by the assessee amounts to manufacture of not:- 27. The case law discussed above falls into four neat categories. (1) Where the goods remain exactly the same even after a particular process, there is obviously no manufacture involved. Pr....