Back
CUSTOM EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MADRAS
MS. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, JJ.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai -Appellant
Versus
J.M.T. Granites & Exports -Respondent
Final Order Nos. 834-836/2010 Appeal Nos. E/618-620/2004, 834 of 2010, 836 of 2010, E/618 of 2004, 620 of 2004
Decided On : 03-08-2010
A.B. Niranjan Babu,Radhika Chandrasekar
Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President - The issue for determination in these three appeals as to whether cutting of granite blocks into slabs amounts to "manufacture" attracting levy of excise duty.
2. We have heard both sides. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the apex court's decision in Aman Marble Industries Vs CCE [2003 (58) RLT 595 (SC)=2003 (157) ELT 393 (SC)] to hold that process carried out by the assessees of cutting marble blocks into slabs does not amount to "manufacture". On the other hand, ld. SDR relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in Commissioner Vs. Pratap Singh [2003 (153) ELT 711] against which the assessees' S.L.P. was dismissed by the apex court and reported in 2003 (156) ELT A382 (SC). Ld. counsel for the assessees draws our attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Anmol Granites Vs. UOI [2006 (199) ELT 769 (Raj.)] holding that cutting and polishing of granites into slabs and tiles does not amount to "manufacture". The High Court has considered the effect of the dismissal of SLP in the Pratap Singh case cited supra and held that dismissal of SLP cannot have overriding effect over the ratio laid down by the apex court in Aman Marble's case.
3. Following the ratio of Aman Marble Industries decision supra, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeals.
