Page 294 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

180 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
CCE v. Osnar Chemical Pvt. Ltd. - 2012 (276) E.L.T. 162 (S.C.), Dabur India v. CCE -
2004 (174) E.L.T. 261 (CESTAT) and National Tar Products v. CCE, Vadodara - 2001
(135) E.L.T. 1388 (Tri.-Mumbai). Ld. AR therefore, prays that the impugned order
has correctly confirmed the demand and M/s. GM is not entitled to avail Cenvat
credit on the inputs and the same is recoverable from M/s. GM.
13. With regard to the appeal filed by M/s. GMI, Ld. AR submits that it
is admitted that the activity undertaken by M/s. GM does not amount to manu-
facture, therefore, M/s. GMI is required to pay duty on the goods cleared to
M/s. GM. Therefore, he submits that the appeal filed by M/s. GMI is liable to be
dismissed.
14. Heard both sides and perused the bulky material available on rec-
ord. On the basis of arguments advanced by both sides, the following issues have
been framed :-
(a) Whether the activity undertaken by M/s. GM, i.e. conversion of un-
refined lead ingots into refined lead ingots and, after removing im-
purities and from refined lead ingots making lead alloys, amounts
to manufacture or not.
(b) While holding that the activity undertaken by M/s. GM does not
amount to manufacture; and the activity undertaken by a unit of
M/s. GM situated in Gandhidham (Gujarat) and other similarly
placed manufacturers, have been held to amount to manufacture, is
in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, or not.
(c) Whether the appellant has been treated as manufacturer or not, in
terms of exemption notification under Customs Notification No.
96/2009-Cus.
(d) Whether the Ld. Adjudicating authority is right to drop the demand
on account of Cenvat credit utilised for payment of duty or not.
(e) Whether M/s. GMI is entitled for the benefit of exemption Notifica-
tion No. 214/86-C.E. or not.
(f) Whether benefit of Notification No. 56/2002-C.E. can be granted to
M/s. GMI, if the benefit of Notification No. 214/86-C.E. is held to be
not entitled to them.
15. We find that the basic issue on merit is that whether the activity
undertaken by M/s. GM is amounts to manufacture or not.
15.1 To decide whether the activity amounts to manufacture or not,
first we need to see the expression “manufacture” as defined under Section 2(f)
of the Act, which is as follows :-
“2(f) “manufacture” includes any process, -
(i) incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured
product;
(ii) which is specified in relation to any goods in the Section or
Chapter notes of [the first Schedule] to the Central Excise Tar-
iff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) as amounting to [manufacture; or]
(iii) [which, in relation to the goods specified in the Third Sched-
ule, involves packing or repacking of such goods in a unit con-
tainer or labeling or re-labelling of containers including the
declaration or alteration of retail sale price on it or adoption of
any other treatment on the goods to render the product mar-
ketable to the consumer,]

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  342