Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Milton Trading Corporation vs Collector Of Central Excise on 9 November, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1992(60)ELT619(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
G. Sankaran, President
1. The only issue which arises for determination in the appeal is as to whether or not the process undertaken by the appellants is one which could be said to amount to "manufacture" within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and if so, whether the resultant product is chargeable to excise duty. The product in question is made of Polyols and Isocyanates within the cavity of articles like water jugs etc., between the outer layer and the inner layer by injecting the two chemicals, namely, Polyols and Isocyanates. By interaction between these two chemicals Polyurethane Foam is formed in situ. The department claims that this product is chargeable to excise duty under Item No. 15A(3) of the erstwhile Central Excise Schedule and under Heading No. 3921.11 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants' claim is that the process does not amount to "manufacture" within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act and therefore, the product does not attract excise duty.
2. This issue had come up before the Tribunal on several occasions. It has been held that the in situ process described above does not amount to "manufacture" within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act and that the resultant product would not, therefore, attract excise duty, - see Order Nos. 1118 & 1119/90- dated 23-10-1990 in M/s. Wimco Pen Company v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, Order No. 655/90-C, dated 27-6-1990 in M/s. Milton Plastics v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II and Order No. 684/89-C, dated 21-11-1989 in M/s. Eagle Flask (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Pune.
3. While the learned counsel for the appellants relies on the above decisions in support of the appeal, the learned DR, reiterated the submissions put forth by the DR in the decided cases.
4. Having considered the submissions of both sides we do not see any reason to depart from the previous decisions. Accordingly, we hold that the in situ process in the instant appeal also did not amount to "manufacture" within the meaning of Section 2(0 of the Act and that the resultant product did not attract excise duty. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.