JUDGMENT
J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. These two appeals are filed against the same order and are therefore being disposed off vide this common order.
2. M/s. Sunrise Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., were engaged in the manufacture of steel structures. They were availing of the benefit of notification available to SSI units where the rate of duty was dependent upon the slab value of manufacture. In addition to manufacturing goods on their own, they were also undertaking similar works on behalf of M/s. Amitasha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. These were done in terms of Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which permitted certain inputs to be removed from the manufacturers premises to a job worker’s premises for undergoing certain manufacturing processes and to be eventually returned to the premises of the principal manufacturer. For this facility M/s. Amitasha Enterprises had filed the required declaration explaining the process to be undertaken by M/s. Sunrise Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. and due permission had been granted.
3. On 27/05/1994 the officers of the Central Excise during the inspection found some structurals being removed from the premises of M/s. Sunrise Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. These goods being removed without the cover of any documents were seized along with the vehicle carrying the goods. Statements of concerned persons were recorded. Show cause notice was issued alleging that M/s. Amitasha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. could never have manufactured steel structures since they had no machinery except that for galvanising. It was alleged that even if the goods received under the Rule 57F(2) from M/s. Sunrise Industries Pvt. Ltd. were galvanised and cleared on payment of duty by M/s. Amitasha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., since galvanising was not a process of manufacture, M/s. Amitasha Enterprises could not be called to be the manufacturer and that the value of the goods so cleared should also be added to the value of the goods cleared by M/s. Sunrise Industries Pvt. Ltd., for counting the value of the eligible clearances under the notification granting concessional rate of duty. The show cause notice demanded differential duty of Rs. 64,38,798/- from M/s. Sunrise Industries Pvt. Ltd. on the presumption that the goods sent by them to M/s. Amitasha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. under the challans under the said rule, should have been in fact been cleared by them on payment of duty inasmuch as they were completely manufactured. After adding the value of the goods on which duty was so demanded a further demand of Rs. 3,46,856/- was made on the value of goods exceeding the limits specified in the notification. The goods removed were alleged to be liable to confiscation, penalties were alleged to be leviable on Sunrise Industries Pvt. Ltd. and also on Amitasha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. in their capacity of having aided and abetted such clearances of M/s. Sunrise Industries Pvt. Ltd. After hearing the parties the Commissioner passed orders dropping the demands made against M/s. Sunrise Industries Pvt. Ltd. He observed that neither respondent had made any suppression or mis-declaration in filing the application under Rule 57F(2). He further held that the requirement of the said rule was that the goods cleared by the job worker should be used for further manufacture of the goods. He observed that galvanising undertaking by M/s. Amitash Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. was a process incidental or ancillary and therefore amounted to process of manufacture in terms of relevant section. He, however, upheld that the charges that the goods were being cleared without payment of duty. He ordered confiscation of the goods and the vehicle but permitted their redemption on payment of appropriate fines. He imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on M/s. Sunrise Industries Pvt. Ltd.
4. M/s. Sunrise Industries Pvt. Ltd. has filed the appeal E/803/95-Bom challenging the order of confiscation and imposing fine and penalty. The Revenue has filed appeal E/1701/96-Bom challenging the orders of the Commissioner dropping the demands made against M/s. Sunrise Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd.
5. We have heard Shri J.M. George for the Revenue and Shri V. Sridhran, along with Shri Gajendra Jain C.A. for the assessee.
6. We have considered the various submissions made in the appeal memorandum filed by the Revenue. The appeal memorandum is a mere repeatition of the allegations made in the show cause notice. The Commissioner’s finding on the process undertaken by M/s. Amitash Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. as amounting to process of manufacture has not been rebutted in the appeal memorandum. By choosing to file an appeal against the finding on M/s. Amitash Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. alone the claim made that these two units had colluded with each other loses its validity. We find that the Commissioner had correctly arrived at the finding that the entire process having been described there was no collusion between the two parties. We also find analysis as to galvanising process being an ancillary process is not at all rebutted by the Revenue in their appeal.
7. We find that the Tribunal in the judgment in the case of CCE v. Rolls Prints (Packaging) Ltd. 1998 (104) ELT 712 had held that process of inspection, counting and packaging done in the factory of principal manufacturer on the goods received from the factory of job worker in terms of Rule 57F(2) of the Rules were processes incidental or ancillary to manufacture and therefore benefit of the Rule was available to the processes. This judgment though issued later approves the stand taken by the Commissioner in the present case. Finding no merit the Revenue’s appeal we dismiss the same.
8. Shri Sridhran fairly chooses not to press his appeal. The appeal filed by M/s. Sunrise Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. is also dismissed.