Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Cce vs Royal Granites (Pvt.) Ltd. on 12 October, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006(113)ECC373, 2006ECR373(TRI.-DELHI), 2007(213)ELT393(TRI-DEL)
ORDER T.V. Sairam, Member (T)
1. The issue before us relates to the period 1999-2001. The issue is, whether sawing of Marble Blocks into slabs and Marble Tiles made therefrom amounts to manufacture of not.
2. When the matter went before the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur, he relied upon the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aman Marble Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur 2003 (58) RLT (SC), which had followed a similar question examined by them in Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Associated Stone Industries and Anr. , which is reproduced below:
...Cutting and polishing stones into slabs was not a process of manufacture for obvious and simple reasons that no new and distinct product came into existence as the end product still remained stone and thus its original identity continued....
3. Aggrieved by the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue has filed this appeal. The grounds of appeal is reproduced below:
That the Commissioner (Appeals-I) Central Excise Jaipur has erred in relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Aman Marble Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur-II reported in 2003 (58) RLT 595 (SC) in which the issue involved was whether sawing of Marble Blocks into slabs, amounts to manufacture or not. Whereas in the instant case the issue pertains to clandestine removal of Marble tiles produced out of the Marble Slabs on which benefit as per Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 25 of Central Excise Act, 1944 was already availed and a not accounted for the entire production in statutory records and subsequently the same were removed without payment of duty. In the instant case the duty was demanded on the Marble tiles and not on the Marble slabs. The excisability of Marble tiles is not under dispute. Thus the order of the Commissioner (Appeals - I) does not appear to be correct and proper.
4. The learned authorized representative of the Department explains the process of manufacture. According to him, unequal blocks of marbles excavated undergo sizing and shaping before they are cut in cutting machines. The slabs obtained are not perfect in size having irregular shape. These slabs again undergo in cutting machines as per the desired size which ranges between 6"x6" to 2'x2' having regular shape and size. It was also informed that in the manufacturing premises of the respondents, only cutting takes place and no polishing is done.
5. The learned Counsel for the respondents reiterates the contentions of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). In addition to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Aman Marble Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE. Jaipur, supra, he also relied upon the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court's decision in the case of Anmol Granites v. Union of India , which had examined a case similar to this. In this case, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the impugned notices which had sought to held that cutting of granite blocks into slabs and tiles and their polishing would amount to manufacturing process.
6. Having heard both sides and examined the case record, I do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
(Dictated & pronounced in the open court)