HYDERABAD v. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD

E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SAJIYASACHI MUKliARJI, J. These are appeals under section 35L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called 'the Act') arise from the decision of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal {CEGAT for short), New D~lhi. The F question that fell for consideration by the Tribunal is whether the appellant M/s. Name Tulaman Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. manufactured weighbridge~ and as such was liable to duty under the Act.

It appears that weighbridges consisted of three different parts, namely, (1) Platform, (2) Load Cells and (3) Indicating system. The b contention of the appellant was that he got the platform manufactured from other people. The load cells were imported and the appellant only made the indicator system. In other words, it was the case of the appellant that it manufactured only the indicator system. The ques- tion, that fell 'for the Tribunal's determination is whether the activity indisputably c.arried out by the appellant amounted to manufacture ff and what does it manufacture? It has been found that "the appellant

N.T. MFRS. v..COLLECTOROFCENTRALEXCISE [MUKHARJl,J.) 3

brought the three components together at site, fitted and assembled A them together so that they can work as one machine and as such the appellant manufactured and created a new weigbbridge". The afore- said findings appear in paragraph 5 of the Tribunal's order. That weighbridge had not been excised before is not disputed. The term of the central excise speaks of "weighbridge"; wheneve1 weighbridges are made, those weighbridges are subjected to duty as such. The B Tribunal held that by whatever process it became a complete weigh- bridge as long as a weighbridge has been made and completed, duty has to be paid. According to the Tribunal, though the parts are themselves liable to excise duty and so the complete machine is also a new excisable good. In view of the well-settled principles, the excisable goods are manfactured by the appellant. Section 2(f) of the Act provides an inclusive definition and states that the word c "manufacture" includes any process incidental or ancillary to the com- pletion of a manufactured product. So any process by which an object becomes new commercial goods, including any process incidental or ancillary to the completion would be manufacture. Manufacture means bringing into existence new goods. This Court observed in D Union of India v. Delhi Cloth Mills, [1963] Suppl. 1 S.C.R. 586 that

p. 4

A case claims to have manufactured only the indicator system. If the indicator system is a separate part and a duty had been paid on it and if the rules so provide then the appellant may be entitled to abatement under the rules. But if the end product is a separate product which comes into being as a result of the endeavour and activity of the appellant then the appellant must be held to have manufactured the B said item. When parts and the end product are separate_ly dutiable- both are taxable.

In that view of the matter, the appellant's case that it is liable only for the component part and not the end product cannot be ... entertained. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in the view it took. C These appeals have no merit and are accordingly dismissed. This order / ' will not preiudice the rights of the appellant to claim, if any, abate- ment as indicated before according to the rules if the appellant is so entitled.

R.S.S. Appeals dismissed.