Page 295 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] COMMR. OF C. EX. & SERVICE TAX, JAMMU & KASHMIR v. GRAVITA METALS 181

and the word “manufacturer” shall be construed accordingly and shall in-
clude not only a person who employs hired labour in the production or
manufacture of excisable goods, but also any person who engages in their
production or manufacture on his own account.”
The said expression has been examined by various Courts and have examined
severely and decided. In the impugned order, Ld. Commissioner has relied on
the decision in the case of Hindustan Cables Limited (supra) to say that activity
does not amount to manufacture. We have gone through the decision, wherein
the claim of the appellant is that alloy itself contains certain percentage of anti-
mony but for the purpose of increasing hardness, further 0.85% of antimony is
mixed with lead by the process of melting the material. Admittedly the product
itself was same but some antimony has been further mixed and in that situation,
it was held by this Tribunal that activity does not amount to manufacture. Fur-
ther, in the case of Exide Industries Limited (supra) this Tribunal has further held
that activity of addition antimony to pure lead and obtaining lead alloy does not
amount to manufacture. Admittedly, the facts of this case are different from the
case laws relied on by the Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order as, in this
case M/s. GM is engaged in purification of unrefined lead to refined lead and
thereafter manufacturing the alloy lead. Therefore, the process is one step ahead
in this case and these two case laws are not relevant to the facts of this case.
15.2 Ld. Commissioner further relied on the decision in the case of Parle
Products Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In the said case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that
where the process of application is resulting in a new and commercially distinct
article known to the market as such is emerging at the end then it would amount
to manufacture, otherwise not. Further, in the case of Gujarat Steel Tubes Limited
(supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that galvanisation does not bring into a
new commodity into existence therefore, the said activity does not amount to
manufacture. Further, in the case of Technoweld Industries (supra), again the
Hon’ble Apex Court held that the process of drawing wires from wire rods not
amounts to manufacture as both products being wires-product not to be consid-
ered excisable merely because wires and wire rods. Further, in the case of Premji
Haridas & Co. (supra), the said decision is in respect of Octroi Refunds under Rule
3A of Bombay Municipal Corporation Octroi Refund Rules, 1965 and the issue
was conversion of Castor Oil (Commercial) into Castor Oil (BP) by a process of
filtration and in the said case, the expression ‘manufacture’ has not been consid-
ered as per Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, the same is not rel-
evant to the facts of this case. In the said case, this Tribunal relied upon the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Limited
- 1977 (1) E.L.T. J199 (S.C.) to say that manufacture implies a change, but every
change is not manufacture and yet every change of an article is the result of
treatment, labour and manipulation. But something more is necessary and there
must be transformation; a new and different article must emerge having a dis-
tinctive name, character or use. The Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order,
relied on the decision of S.R. Tissues Pvt. Limited (supra) to impress upon that
slitting/cutting of jumbo rolls of plain tissue paper/aluminium foil into smaller
size does not amount to manufacture on first principles as character and end use
did not undergo any change on account of winding, cutting/slitting and pack-
ing. Ld. Commissioner has also relied on the decision in the case of Aman Marble
Industries Pvt. Limited (supra) to say that cutting of marble blocks into slabs is not
bringing a new substance into existence therefore, does not amount to manufac-
ture and it was held that said activity does not amount to manufacture. The Ld.
AR heavily relied upon the decision of Shyam Oil Cakes Limited (supra) to say that

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  343