MULTIMETALS LIMITED Vs. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR CENTRAL EXCISE KOTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under S. 3 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 excise duty is payable on all excisable goods produced or manufactured in India at the rates set forth in the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. Item 26A of the Schedule to the Tariff Act reads as follows :

(2.) While it is the case of the appellant that it was entitled to exemption from excise duty under this Notification on the quantity of the raw material used by it in the manufacture of pipes and tubes including the manufacturing loss the Department contended that the exemption from excise duty was available only on the quantity of copper contents available in the weight of finished products and not on the entire quantity of copper used in the manufacture of pipes and tubes. Though there was some dispute at an initial stage as to whether in the manufacture of pipes and tubes any quantity of raw material is lost or as a result of the said loss during the process of manufacture the weight of the final finished product did not represent the weight of the metal used as raw material, in view of the fact that the Appellate Authority, namely, the Collector of Central Excise has found that there was a manufacturing loss and that the claim of the appellant that the lost quantity was 6.97% appears to be genuine, we proceed on the basis that there was certain manufacturing loss. The High Court was of the view that the Notification granted exemption "only on pipes and tubes, which means that the exemption has to be calculated on the basis of the weight of the raw material actually used for the purpose of manufacture of pipes and tubes."

(3.) Mr. Harish Salve, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Notification intended to and on plain reading it did, exempt copper and copper alloys used in the manufacture of pipes and tubes of copper and copper alloys and that the intention was to give relief to the extent of the duty already paid on the copper or copper alloys in its crude form which were used in the manufacture. If this is kept in mind according to the learned counsel the entire material that was used for the manufacture of pipes and tubes including the manufacturing loss will have to be taken into account and to the extent of the duty paid thereon the relief will have to be given. On the other hand Mr. Gouri Shanker Murthy, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the Revenue strenuously contended that rebate of duty of what we may call manufacturing loss is not envisaged at all under the notification and that only that quantity actually forms part of the pipes or tubes alone has to be taken into account for the purposes of rebate on duty.