ORDER
K.L. Rekhi, Member (J)
1. The respondents are manufacturers of wooden veneers and plywood. In the course of such manufacture, they saw wooden logs into slabs. Certain portions of the sawn timber which contain knots, flowery grains, crackes etc. and hence are not suitable for manufacture of veneers, are taken out and cleared from the factory as timber waste. Relying on the order No. 488 of 1981 dated 30-6-1981 of the Government of India passed in revision, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) held that since the timber retained the characteristics as timber when cleared as waste, no manufacture was involved and hence the timber waste did not attract levy of central excise duty. The case of the department in favour of their appeal filed against this order of the Collector (Appeals) is that the so-called timber waste is not really a waste as it is usable for manufacture of wooden furniture. On that plea, the department wants us to set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal.
2. The learned advocate present at the time of the hearing on behalf of the respondents stated that he was only a proxy advocate, that the advocate retained by the respondents, Shri M.L. Lahoty, had not come because he had not received the required documents from the respondents and that the matter may, therefore, be adjourned. We observed from the records that certain documents had been asked for from the respondents on 13-8-85 when Shri M.L. Lahoty was present. About five weeks’ time was given to him for this purpose. By now, about ten weeks were over and the documents were still not forthcoming. No plausible explanation for not filing the documents had been given either. We, therefore, found the request of the respondents’ advocate untenable and proceeded with the hearing.
3. We have heard the learned representative of the department and have carefully considered the matter. We find that the goods in dispute arc cut pieces of rough sawn timber. The respondents may be calling them timber waste in a relative sense since they are not suitable for manufacture of their regular product-veneers and plywood. Assuming that these cut pieces are capable of being used in manufacture of wooden furniture, as contended by the department, yet the fact is that they remain cut pieces of rough sawn timber only and nothing more. They have not assumed the form of identifiable articles of wood. The parent material in the form of logs was wood or timber. So are the cut pieces of rough and sawn timber, termed as “timber waste”. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that just by the process of rough sawing any transformation of timber into different commercial articles having a distinct name, character or use has taken place. We. therefore, agree with the Collector (Appeals) that no conversion of timber into a different manufactured product can be said to have resulted when “timber waste” arises as a by-product in the course of manufacture of veneers and hence no duty liability on such “timber waste” is attracted.
4. In the result, we dismiss this appeal.