Whether cutting and slitting of jumbo rolls into small rolls of different sizes amounts to manufacture?

PJ/Case Law/2013-14/1845

Case:- COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-III Vs M/s ASMACO INDUSTRIES LTD.

Citation:- 2013-TIOL-1148-CESTAT -MUM

Issue:- Whether cutting and slitting of jumbo rolls into small rolls of different sizes amounts to manufacture?

Brief Facts:- The brief facts of this case are that Respondent is importing as well as well procuring indigenous jumbo Roll of Plastic, aluminium and paper and cutting and slitting the jumbo Rolls into small different sizes. The Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that cutting and slitting of jumbo rolls of plastic, aluminium and paper does not amount to manufacture.

Appellant contentions: - The contention of the Revenue in the present appeal is that the process of cutting and slitting facilitates the utility of product. Without cutting and slitting, the said product cannot be marketed. Hence the character and end use did undergo some changes on account of slitting and cutting. The contention of the Revenue is also that the jumbo Rolls unless and until cut and slit in specific width length cannot be made usable. The process of cutting and slitting the jumbo rolls into small tapes of different sizes as a result of which distinct identifiable new product are generated.

Respondent contentions:- The Respondent relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of CCE, New Delhi-I v/s S.R. Tissue Paper P. ltd. Reported in 2005 (186) ELT 385 (SC)to submit that the slitting and cutting of tissue paper or aluminium foil does not amounts to manufacture.

Reasoning of Judgment: - As per the decision of the Supreme court in the case of CCE, New Delhi-I v/s S.R. Tissue Paper P. ltd. Reported in 2005 (186) ELT 385 (SC), it was held that the process of slitting/cutting of jumbo roll of plain tissue paper/aluminium foil into smaller size will not amount to ‘manufacture’ on first Principle as well as under section 2(f) of the said Act.
The ratio of the above decision is fully applicable on the facts of the present case. As such, the appeal was rejected as the same was found to be devoid of any merits.

Decision:- Appeal dismissed.

Comment:-The analogy of the case is that the process of slitting and cutting does not amounts to manufacture so as to levy excise duty as no new product emerges out of such process that has distinct character and use.

Comments

PJ/Case Law/2013-14/1845

Post a Comment

Query