ORIENTAL TRIMEX LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON issue is involved in these appeals and, therefore, both are being taken up together for disposal.

(2.) THE relevant facts of the case as per record, in brief, are that the appellants were purchasing marble blocks and marble slabs for processing thereon. The blocks were subjected to processing of sizing to make it rectangular and cut into slabs of uniform thickness by using Gangsaw machines. The slabs got cracks and pin holes in some cases and pasted fiber glass sheets on one side and resin is applied to fill -in holes the cracks on the other side of the slabs for smooth transportation. The final products are rough marble slab, cut to size marble slabs (polished stroke by rough) and marble tiles (polished). In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aman Marble Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE : 2003 (157) ELT 393 (SC), the appellant claimed that prior to 01.3.2006 the processes undertaken by them do not amount to manufacture and no duty was paid. From 01.3.2006, Note 6 was inserted to Chapter 25 of CETA, 1986. The appellants claimed the classification of the products would come under sub -heading No. 25251220 and 25151290 and availed concessional rate of duty under Notification No. dated 1.3.2006. On 5.7.2006, the Central Excise Officers visited the appellants factory and examined the processes undertaken by the appellants. They had recorded the statements of the representative of the appellants. Show cause notices were issued time to time proposing demand of duty and imposition of penalty. Commissioner confirmed the demand of duty for the entire period from April 2005 to September 2007 and imposed penalties along with interest.

(3.) LD . Advocate on behalf of the appellants submits that the entire period of demand of duty may be divided in two parts, as under: