Page 286 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

172 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

2020 (372) E.L.T. 172 (Tri. - Chan.)
IN THE CESTAT, REGIONAL BENCH, CHANDIGARH
[COURT NO. I]
S/Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J) and Devender Singh, Member (J)
COMMR. OF C. EX. & SERVICE TAX, JAMMU & KASHMIR
Versus
GRAVITA METALS
Final Order Nos. A/62014-62016/2017-EX(DB), dated 17-10-2017 in Appeal Nos.
E/51871, 51089 & 52408/2015
1
Manufacture - Activity of conversion of unrefined lead ingots into re-
fined lead ingots to make lead alloys for making batteries - Refined lead
means metal containing by weight at least 99.9% of lead which is used for
manufacturing of lead acid battery, and so, its use is different from the use of
unrefined lead ingots - In view of the decision by Apex Court in 2015 (319)
E.L.T. 578 (S.C.) such an activity amounts to manufacture, when a different
product comes into existence as a result of a process which makes the said
product commercially usable - Also, in terms of Notification No. 96/2009-Cus.
said process amounts to manufacture as FTP read with the Import Export Poli-
cy, requires to bring a new product having a distinct name, character and use -
Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. - The concept of “manufacture” in Central
Excise is that “whenever a commodity undergoes a change as a result of some operation
performed on it, such operation would amount to processing of the commodity. But it is
only when the change or a series of changes takes the commodity to the point where com-
mercially, it can no longer be regarded as the original commodity but is recognized as a
new and distinct article. Every manufacturer of batteries has its own specifications of the
refined lead and lead alloy ingots, and these are made to very exact specifications, includ-
ing the use of spectrometric analysis. [1977 (1) E.L.T. (J199) (S.C.) relied on]. [paras
15.3, 16]
Demand - Cenvat credit - Credit utilized for payment of duty on final
product - Revenue’s case that the goods manufactured by appellant are ex-
empted from duty therefore, not entitled to Cenvat credit - In view of the deci-
sion reported in 2013 (294) E.L.T. 203 (Bom.), when activity not amounts to
manufacture, the payment of duty shall be the amount of reversal of Cenvat
credit - So, demand not sustainable [para 22]
Job work - Exemption - Raw material after processing returned to sup-
plier - Principal manufacturer filed an undertaking before the Department for
discharging the duty on manufactured goods, thus condition under Notifica-
tion No. 214/86-C.E. fulfilled - Therefore, the benefit of Notification No.
214/86-C.E. cannot be denied. [para 23]
Department’s appeal dismissed/Assessee’s appeals allowed
CASES CITED
Aggarwal Rolling Mills v. Collector — 1997 (93) E.L.T. 615 (Tribunal) — Referred ...................... [Para 11]
Aman Marble Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner —
2003 (157) E.L.T. 393 (S.C.) — Referred ............................................................................. [Paras 12, 15.2]
________________________________________________________________________
1 In appeal against this order, notice was issued by Supreme Court in 2020 (372) E.L.T. A30
(S.C.).
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  334