Page 293 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] COMMR. OF C. EX. & SERVICE TAX, JAMMU & KASHMIR v. GRAVITA METALS 179
Mumbai). In the alternative, it was also submitted that the appellants herein are
themselves availing the benefit of exemption Notification No. 56/2002-C.E. for
other products being manufactured and cleared from the factory, which the
Commissioner also recognises in the impugned order, however denies the bene-
fit on the ground that, procedure under Notification No. 56/2002-C.E. has not
been followed. He submits that the raw material supplier had been granted a
licence to manufacture the goods in the factory namely, refined lead as also alloy
lead ingots from unrefined lead. For a number of years the benefit of the exemp-
tion Notification No. 56/2002-C.E. has also been extended to the raw material
supplier i.e. M/s. GM. Similarly, the benefit of Notification No. 214/86-C.E. for
converting the scrap into unrefined lead ingots has been extended to the appel-
lants for a number of years and the present demand is confined only for the peri-
od Dec., 2012 to Oct., 2013. Therefore, all the arguments that process of manufac-
ture has been undertaken by M/s. GM and the present demand do not lie, are
also being agitated by M/s. GM. Thus, if the process amounts to manufacture in
the hands of M/s. GM, then there will be no case for denying the benefit of Noti-
fication No. 214/86-C.E. to M/s. GMI. In the alternative, in any case benefit of
Notification No. 56/2002-C.E. should be extended to M/s. GMI, inasmuch as all
other criteria have been satisfied for this notification other than those being sup-
plied on job work basis, and cleared from the factory of the appellants, have been
extended the benefit of the Notification No. 56/2002-C.E. The non-following of
the procedure was due to availment of benefit of Notification No. 214/86-C.E.,
wherein all formal procedures have been followed by M/s. GMI. In that circum-
stances, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Formica India Division v.
Collector of Central Excise - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511 (S.C.), non-following of procedures
was an impossibility at the relevant time due to availing of the other Notification
No. 214/86-C.E. and hence, the benefit of Notification No. 56/2002-C.E. should
now be extended. He also submitted that the Commissioner has also confirmed
the demand on dross, waste etc. of lead relying on the Larger Bench decision of
the Tribunal in the case of Hindalco Industries Limited - 2014 (308) E.L.T.472 (Tri.
LB). However, this decision stands overruled by the Hon’ble High Court of
Bombay in the case of Hindalco Industries Limited - 2015 (315) E.L.T. 10 (Bom.). He
therefore submits that demand on this count also liable to be set aside.
12. On the other hand, Ld. AR for the Revenue reiterates the findings of
impugned order to say that the adjudicating authority has examined the issue
whether the activity undertaken by M/s. GM amounts to manufacture or not, in
the light of Hindustan Cables Limited v. CCE, Calcutta - 1985 (22) E.L.T. 180. (Tri.)
and Exide Industries Limited v. CCE, Calcutta - 2003 (154) E.L.T. 110 (Tri.-Kolkata)
and also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI v.
Parle Products Pvt. Limited - 1994 (74) E.L.T. 492 (S.C.) to say that the activity or
process in order to amount manufacture must lead to emergence of new com-
mercial product, different from the one with which the process started. He also
relied upon the following decisions; Gujarat Steel Tubes Limited v. State of Kerala -
1989 (42) E.L.T. 513 (S.C.), CCE v. Technoweld Industries - 2003 (155) E.L.T. 209
(S.C.), CCE v. Kayes Agro Industries - 2001 (132) E.L.T. 701 (Tri.-Chennai), CCE v.
S.R. Tissues Pvt. Ltd. - 2005 (186) E.L.T. 385 (S.C.), Aman Marble Industries Pvt. Lim-
ited v. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur - 2003 (157) E.L.T. 393 (S.C.), Pemji Haridas
v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai -1997 (89) E.L.T. 658 (Bom-HC),
Mineral Oil Corporation v. CCE - 1999 (114) E.L.T. 166 (CESTAT), Shyam Oil Cakes
Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur - 2004 (174) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.), Tunga-
bhadra Industries Limited v. The Commercial Tax Officer, Kurnool - 1961 (2) SCR 14,

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  341