Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Bharatbhai B. Gala, Gujarat ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 27 November, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002(146)ELT169(TRI-MUMBAI)
JUDGMENT Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. Duty of Rs. 12.20 lakhs has been demanded from Gujarat Industries, and penalty of equal amount are required to be deposited. Penalties of Rs. 35,000/- on Bharatbhai B. Gala, Rs. 15,000/- on Manoharmal B. Jain, Rs. 20,000/- on Kapoorchand M. Malvi and Rs. 10,000/- on Kamlesh M. Bhavsar are also required to be deposited.
2. The duty has been demanded, and penalties imposed on the finding of the Commissioner that cold rolling of steel strips that Gujarat Industries undertook to reduce their thickness, resulted in the hardness of that strips and other technical characteristics being modified, as a result of which it concludes that the processes were not manufacture and the result product was liable to duty. The three persons on whom penalties under Rule 29A have been imposed had supplied on job work the strips that were subjected to reduction.
3. In its order on stay application by Lalit Engineering Works (application No. E/stay-177/2001 in appeal E/185/2001), the Tribunal had taken note of the Supreme Court judgment in CCE v. Steel Strips Limited 1995 (75) ELT 248, holding that cold rolling of strips manufactured by steel rolling mills does not amount to process of manufacture. It had therefore waived deposit of the duty demanded and penalty imposed on the applicant before it. The departmental representative seeks to distinguish the Supreme Court judgment. He contends that subsequent to the period with which that judgment was concerned, the definition of "manufacture" has undergone a change. We do not see how this helps the department. The only change that took place (in 1986) was the inclusion in the definition of "manufacture" or "process" deemed to be such in the notes to the chapters of the tariff. Prima facie, therefore, the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment would apply to the facts before us and no duty would be payable.
4. Accordingly we waive deposit of the duty and penalty, and stay their recovery.