LAWS(CE)-2001-8-537

M/S ZENITH RUBBER LTD. Vs. CCE, DELHI

Decided On August 14, 2001
M/S Zenith Rubber Ltd. Appellant
V/S
CCE, DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals have been filed by the appellants against confirmation of demand of duty and imposition of penalty. As the three appeals arise out of the same order, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) IN reply to the SCN, the appellants submitted that they were receiving old and used rollers from various customers for re -rubberisation; that the process of re -rubberisation of the old and used rollers comprise removal of old rubber from the roller and application of bonded solution on the surface of the roller; that by the process of re -rubberising the old and used rubber rollers are only repaired; that rubberised rollers are in existence prior to and after the process of re -rubberising; that no process as to change the identity of the original rubberised roller to a new an distinct article is carried out by the appellant; that in both the case i.e. before re -rubberising and after re -rubberising the rollers remain as rollers only; that inspite of the process of re -rubberising the same use and character of the rollers continued to be the same; that the process of re -rubberising has not brought in complete transformation of the rubber rollers sent by the customers into a different distinct article having new name, character and used. In support of their contention they cited a lot of case law. Ld. Commissioner after examining their contentions, submissions and the case law on the subject cited and relied upon by the appellant, confirmed a demand of Rs. 2,84,88,381/ - and imposed a penalty of an equal amount of duty on the assessee and imposed personal penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/ - on Shri H.S. Paintal, Managing Director and 50,000/ - on Shri V.K. Kaushik.

(3.) ARGUING the case for the appellants Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, and Shri Shekhar Vyas, Ld. Counsels submit that the process of re -rubberising on the used and old rubber rollers does not amount to manufacture; that the appellants undertook the work of old used layer and replacing or bonding a fresh layer on the old and used spindle.