TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (5) TMI 182
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....referred to as M/s. Srinivasa) for the purpose of slitting and rolling the Aluminium sheets to reduce the width and the thickness of the same. M/s. Srinivasa thereafter send back the goods to M/s. Vittaleshwara in consideration for job charges. M/s. Vittaleshwara, on receipt of the slited and rolled Aluminium strips, painted the same and returned it to M/s. Aldec Corporation in consideration for job charges. M/s. Aldec Corporation sold the painted Aluminium strips in coils as received from the M/s. Vittaleshwara without carrying out any further process on the same. 3. A show cause noticed dated 28-3-1995 covering the period from April 1990 to October 1994 was issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise demanding duty amounting to Rs. 1,51,68,141/- on painted Aluminium Slats besides proposing to confiscate 650.55 kg of painted Aluminium slats seized from the premises and proposing penalty under 173Q of Central Excise Rules. Show cause notice dated 5-7-1995 was issued to them by Superintendent of Central Excise demanding duty amounting to Rs. 9,57,655/- for the period from December 94 to April 95 and also proposing penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. The main gro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appellants to get themselves registered with the Central Excise. The order of 14-11-1994 was challenged by the appellants before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order dated 13-12-1994 passed an order holding that there is no justification to call the appellants as manufactures and set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 14-11-94. However inspite of this, they received a show cause notice dated 28-11-1995 demanding duty of Rs. 1,51,68,141/- and proposing penal action against them. Ld. Sr. Advocate pleaded that show cause issued by the Commissioner is time barred. The entire operation of M/s. Aldec Corporation, M/s. Vittaleshwara and M/s. Srinivasa was known to the department right from the year 1986 and proceedings initiated by the department were dropped either at the stage of Additional Commissioner or at the stage of the Commissioner (Appeals). In 1994, the proceedings initiated for taking license against M/s. Aldec Corporation were also dropped by the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore the entire activities of M/s. Aldec Corporation, M/s. Vittaleshwara and M/s. Srinivasa were known to the department and extended period u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eaded that since the matter has been finally decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the activity undertaken by the appellants does not amount to manufacture and they do not require any Registration/License, the Commissioner cannot overrule the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) without challenging it in appeal. He relied upon the decision of Bombay High Court in case of Prakash Construction & Engg. Co. v. UOI - 1991 (56) E.L.T. 58 (Bom.). He further pleaded that if the above contention of the appellants are not accepted, then they are eligible for Modvat credit. They relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Formica India v. CCE - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511 (S.C.) 7. Shri L. Narasimha Murthy, SDR appeared for Revenue. He pleaded that show cause notices are not time barred as new facts have come to the notice of the department. In the earlier proceedings before the Additional Commissioner or the Commissioner (Appeals), these facts were not available. He stated that M/s. Vittaleshwara and M/s. Srinivas are hired labourers of M/s. Aldec Corporation and they were not independent job worker. He stated that detailed investigation carried out clearly shows that M/s. Al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als) in his order dated 26-8-1987 holding that activity of painting carried out by M/s. Vittaleshwara does not amount to manufacture. The Additional Commissioner of Central Excise in his order dated 26-11-1986 held that the activity of slitting and rolling does not amount to manufacture. The Department accepted both the orders of the Additional Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals). We find that in the impugned order the Commissioner has given a finding that the raw materials required for manufacture of painted Aluminium slats was Aluminium sheets of width 472 mm and of thickness 2.03 mm. These sheets are slit to smaller sizes of 50 mm/25 mm width and their thickness is reduced to 0.23 mm. In Para 81, the Commissioner has observed that the Additional Collector in his Order-in-Original No. 74/85, dated 26-11-1986 has held - "In order for an activity to be considered as manufacture as defined in Section 2(f) a new product would emerge. However, in the present case, the product that emerges after the process continues to fall under the same sub-item namely, Tariff Item No. 27(6) as raw material." The Collector (Appeals) in his Order-in-Appeal dated 27-8-1997 held - "In ....