2002 (10) TMI 148

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oner passed order. His findings on excisability were as follows : "The slitting operation undertaken by the assessee essentially involves reduction in width by sliting across the width and these slits are rewound again on the slitting line. The process of slitting comprises 3 types :- (i)         Where the width of the parent coil is more than 600 mm while the slitting width is less than 600 mm. (ii)        Where the width of the parent coil as well as the slitted width of the processed material will both be less than 600 mm and (iii)       Where the width of the parent coil as well as the slitted material will both be more than 6....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ribunal took into account the contention of Revenue that irrespective of the change in the tariff entry or otherwise, the activity of slitting would amount to manufacture attracting fresh duty. The Revenue had placed reliance on the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Laminated Packings (P) Ltd. [1990 (49) E.L.T. 326 (S.C.)]. The Tribunal distinguished the judgment and in the absence of any allegation in the show cause notice; the Tribunal upheld the finding that where the resultant goods fell under the same tariff item, no manufacture could be said to have taken place. The Tribunal took notice of the contention that the rate of duty being the same, even if the resultant goods fell under another sub-entry, there was no manufacture. On thi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xistence. In holding so the Court referred to their judgment in the case of Moti Laminates Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1995 (76) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.)] in this judgment it was held that merely because certain goods found their place in an entry under the Tariff it did not mean that they became dutiable goods unless shown that they were produced or manufactured by the person from whom duty was sought to be recovered. The actual words used by the Hon'ble Court read as follows :- "The tariff schedule by placing the goods in specific and general category does not alter the basic character of leviability. The duty is attracted not because an article is covered in any of the times or it falls in residuary category but it must further....