Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Collector Of Central Excise vs Hindustan Tyres Pvt. Ltd. on 21 December, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1988(35)ELT409(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
G. Sankaran, Senior Vice-President (T)
1. The basic issue involved in the three appeals mentioned above being the same, they were taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common order.
2. We have heard Shri J.F. Pochkhanwala, Advocate for Hindustan Tyres Pvt. Ltd. and Shri K.C. Sachar, JDR for the Revenue.
3. The basic issue involved in all these matters is whether re-rubberisation of old and worn out rubberised M.S. Rims amounts to a process of "manufacture" within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act. If the answer is in the affirmative, the assessee loses and if the answer is in the negative, the assessee wins.
4. Though the orders of the lower authorities referred to are rubberisation of articles other than rubberised M.S. Rims, Shri Pochakhanwala, counsel for Hindustan Tyres made it clear before us that only re-rubberisation of old and worn out rubberised M.S. Rims was in dispute before us and, therefore, we have confined our attention to this article and naturally, our orders will also be only in respect of this article.
5. Before we dissuss the issue, we must mention that in Appeal No. E-1741/87-D, The Collector (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal filed by M/s. Hindustan Tyres, Under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act for non-deposit of the duty adjudged as due from the assessee by the Assistant Collector. When this appeal was taken up for hearing, it was brought to our notice that the assessee had since deposited the duty amount. Since as we shall presently note, the basic issue in this appeal and the other two appeals has since been settled by the Supreme court, we do not consider it necessary to remand the matter covered by Appeal No. E/1741/87-D to the Collector (Appeals).
6. In the case of Lathia Industrial Supplies Co. (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Baroda - 1987 (29) ELT 751 (S.C.), decided on 6-1-1987, the Supreme Court, disposing of an appeal against a decision of this Tribunal, has held that re-rubberising and re-lining of old and used rollers (the goods in that case) would not amount to "manufacture" attracting levy of Central Excise duty. The ratio of this judgment squarely applies to the facts of the three matters now before us. Accordingly, we hold that re-rubberising of worn out rubberised M.S. Rims would not amount to "manufacture" within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act. Accordingly the assessee is not liable to pay duty as demanded by the department and wherever such duty has been paid, the assessee is entitled to refund of the amount.
7. Accordingly Collector of Central Excise's Appeal No. E.2493/85-D, is dismissed and Appeals Nos. E.72/86-D and E/1741/87-D filed by Hindustan Tyres Pvt. Ltd. are allowed.