H.R. Syiem, Member (T)

1. M/s. Pressure Cookers and Appliances Limited of Nangal Shama (PCA) buy goods which they call basic grill mechanism or griller from another firm named P.C.A. Electricals and bring them to their depot at a placed called Nangal Shama. In that depot they pack the basic grill mechanism with other articles like sandwich plate, waffle plate, baking tray, tongs, spatula, surface scrubber, instruction-cum-recipe book and guarantee card. This assembly is sold by M/s PCA as a unit of twink inframatic cuisinette.

2. M/s PCA also buy what they call electric stove from M/s PCA Electricals and pack it together in one box with one cook-n-serve bowl, a coaster-cum-meat rack, glass lid, instructions-cum-recipe book, and sell these assembled goods as twink simmermatic cuisinette.

3. M/s PCA say that duty has been paid on the stove and the griller which went into the units which they sell viz. twink inframatic cuisinette and twink simmermatic cuisinette. After much correspondence etc., the central excise came to the conclusion that M/s PCA had manufactured new excisable goods when they packed the articles to produce the twink inframatic cuisinette, twink simmermatic cuisinette from the different components parts and accessories which they bought from different people and which they bring to Nangal Shama in order to put the units together. M/s PCA resisted this move of the central excise department mainly on the ground that their activity at Nangal Shama was not the manufacture defined in the Central Excises and Salt Act and could not be defined as a manufacture even in conventional terms. They merely brought different goods manufactured by different people together to present them to customers in a form that in convenient and attractive to users of the devices but without undertaking any activity that can be remotely described as a manufacturing activity. They refute the claim of the central excise that they fix heat control on the twink simmermatic cuisinette, by saying that they merely pasted the name plate to show the product as a product marketed by them.

4. Several arguments were presented by the learned counsels for M/s PCA over several days. They pointed out that there have been contradictions in the central excise action because they seek to assess the goods they sell, under item 33C. There is a notification No. 33/69-CE which exempts all but a few specified articles failing under the item from duty. The central excise did not even trouble to specify which of the articles in the notification the goods fell it. Just to be able to assess the inframatic under item 33C, the central excise passed an order that the griller which was a component of the inframatic, was an electric cooker. About the simmermatic the Collector claimed that the M/s PCA installed the control panel. The actual control of the heat is not done by means of the panel but by the inbuilt component inside the stove which came already installed in the stove when it was bought from M/s PCA Electricals. Each of the items in the twink simmermatic cuisinette can function independently, but as a matter of business enterprise, the items are sold together after they are packed at Nangal Shama depot.

5. The Collector found that the stove in the simmermatic could not function independently unless all the four items are assembled, but he overlooks by this that all stoves which perform similar function will require a utensil to hold the food to be cooked on that stove. Merely because the stove and the bowl are sold together does not mean that M/s PCA manufactured them. The intention behind their packing the bowl, the coaster-meat-rack and the lid is only to see that the customers would not have to go shopping separately for these items; they find them conveniently in one packing. The coaster-meat-rack can be used both for cooking as well as a coaster for the bowl. The Collector therefore failed to appreciate the concept of a stove and so considered the packing a