Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Universal Enterprises on 14 March, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. II E/CO/-91/04 APPEAL No.E/564/04 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.BPS(334)213/2003 dated 15/10/2003 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Aurangabad) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Honble Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy :Seen of the Order? 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :Yes authorities? ========================================
Commissioner of Central Excise, Appellant Aurangabad Vs. Universal Enterprises Respondent Universal Enterprises Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Respondent Aurangabad Appearance:
None for appellant Dr.B.S.Meena, Addl. Comm. (AR), for respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. P.R.Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Honble Mr.Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing : 14/03/2014 Date of Decision : 14/03/2014 ORDER NO Per: P.R.Chandrasekharan
1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No.BPS(334)213/2003 dated 15/10/2003 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Aurangabad.
2. Vide the impugned order, the learned appellate authority has set aside the order of the adjudicating authority confirming a duty demand of Rs.40,046/- along with interest thereon and imposing equivalent amount of penalty on the ground of limitation and also on the ground that the activity undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture. Aggrieved of the same, the Revenue is before us.
3. In the appeal memorandum, it is submitted that the respondent herein, M/s. Universal Enterprises undertook cutting to shape of plastic films and sheets as per customers requirements and cleared such cut films and sheets without payment of duty. This activity of cutting the plastic films and sheets into required shape by the customers would amount to manufacture.
4. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum.
5. None represented the respondent. However, they have submitted that the submissions made in the cross objection be considered and the issue decided on merits. It is also submitted that since the duty is involved is less than Rs.50,000/-, the appeal filed by the Revenue be dismissed by using the discretion given to the Tribunal for not entertaining appeal if the amount involved is less than Rs.50,000/-.
6. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides.
6.1 The activity undertaken by the appellant is cutting of plastic sheets/films purchased from the market into required shapes and sizes such as annular foam ring, rounds and squares as required by the customers. Merely cutting a sheet or film into required shape or size does not result in bringing into existence any new product and therefore, there is merit in the contention of the respondent that the activity undertaken by them did not amount to manufacture. The lower appellate authority has also come to the same conclusion.
7. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the lower appellate authority. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as devoid of merits. The cross objection is also disposed of.
(Dictated in Court) (Anil Choudhary) Member (Judicial) (P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical) pj 1 4