C.C.E. Meerut-I vs Mahalaxmi Krafts And Tissues Pvt. Ltd on 25 July, 2016
14. Having considered the rival contentions, after going through the records,
we find that the present SCN has been issued by the Revenue due to change of
opinion and/or interpretation after introduction of the 8 digit tariff. The only
case of Revenue is that under the 8 digit tariff, due to processes undertaken by
the appellant, the green pipe also falls under Chapter 73 and the processed
pipe also falls under Chapter 73, although under different sub-headings and
thus, it amounts to manufacture, due to change of the sub-heading. We find
that this issue is no longer res integra. Under similar facts and circumstances,
(8)
E/25925/2013, E/21646/2014,
E/30446, 30447/2016, E/31151/2017
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CCE vs SR Tissues Pvt Ltd (supra), on the issue
of whether the process of unwinding, cutting and slitting to sizes of jumbo rolls
of tissue paper would amount to manufacture on the first principles or under
Sec 2(f) of the Act, it was held that the activity of slitting and cutting of jumbo
rolls of plain tissue paper/aluminium foil into smaller size does not amount to
manufacture as character and end-use did not undergo any change on account
of winding, cutting/slitting and packing. It was also held that slitting and cutting
of toilet tissue paper or aluminium foil has not been treated as manufacture by
legislature under Section/Chapter notes of Central Excise Tariff, hence Sec 2(f)
of the Act is not applicable. It was also held that mere mention of a product in a
tariff heading does not necessarily implies that the said product was obtained
by process of manufacture, just because raw material and finished product fall
under two different sub-headings. It cannot be presumed that process of
obtaining finished product from such raw material automatically constitute
manufacture.