Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Yamuna Gases And Chemicals Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 15 March, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001(130)ELT854(TRI-DEL)
ORDER Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. The dispute in this case relates to excisability of three varieties of cable jointing kits namely, (1) Resin Cast, (2) Push on, and (3) Heat Shrinkable. All the three varieties consists of various components such as tubes, joining compounds, bushings, top cap, aluminium lugs, etc., which are packed for assembly of cable joints at the site of the customers. According to the department the item is excisable goods falling for classification under Heading 85.47 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 while the assessees contend that the item is not excisable goods.
2. On hearing both the sides, we find that the issue is no longer res Integra as it stands settled by the Tribunal's order in the case of Siechem v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh - 1999 (30) RLT 207 in which the Tribunal has followed the judgment of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Excel Telecom Ltd. and Ors. v. Superintendent of Central Excise (in Writ Petition No. 8282/98) in coming to its conclusion that the activity of putting together duty paid components of cable jointing kits does not bring into existence a new commercially distinct product called cable jointing kits and therefore, such process does not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal's decision cited supra was followed in the case of TI Diamond Chain Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise II, Chennai 1999 (35) RLT 517 wherein the Tribunal has held that packing of rear wheel sprocket and gear box sprocket purchased from outside and packed along with their own manufactured duty paid automotive chain and connecting link, and labelled as transmission kit, does not amount to manufacture of a new product. The Revenue have filed separate appeals against both these orders of the Tribunal, in the Supreme Court, which by its order dated 3rd March, 2000 rejected the appeals.
3. Following the ratio of the above orders, we hold that no manufacture is involved in the present case and hence set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.