CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI REGIONAL BENCH – COURT No. III Excise Appeal No. 40339 of 2018 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. CMB-CEX-000-APP-308/2017 dated 09.11.2017 passed by Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals), No. 6/7, A.T.D. Street, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 018)

M/s. Maharaja Roofing Products ...Appellant

60 Feet Road, A3, Sulur Industrial Estate, Kadampadi, Kangeyampalayam Post, Sulur Taluk, Sulur, Coimbatore – 641 402.

Versus Commissioner of GST and Central Excise ...Respondent Coimbatore Commissionerate, No. 6/7, A.T.D. Street, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 018.

APPEARANCE:

For the Appellant : Mr. K. Bindusaran, Consultant For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Kakkar, Authorised Representative CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER No. 40263 / 2026 DATE OF HEARING : 30.10.2025 DATE OF DECISION : 19.02.2026 Per Mr. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO The present appeal is filed by M/s. Maharaja Roofing Products, Coimbatore (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellant’) against Order-in-Appeal No. CMB/CEX/000 /APP/308/17 dated 09.11.2017(‘Impugned Order’ for short) passed by the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals), Coimbatore, whereby Order-in-Original No.

09/2017 dated 30.03.2017 was upheld.

1.2 The Appellant is engaged in the activity of converting colour-coated / galvanised steel sheets in coil form into profiled roofing sheets by processes such as de- coiling, straightening, roll-forming, profiling, crimping and cutting to size. The Appellant undertakes such activity both on its own account as well as on job-work basis for traders who supply raw material.

1.3 During the audit of the Appellant’s accounts conducted in August 2012, it was noticed that in respect of job-work undertaken for three traders, the Appellant discharged Central Excise duty only on the job-work charges and not on the value inclusive of raw materials supplied by the traders. The Department alleged that the activity amounted to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and that valuation ought to have been done in terms of Section 4 read with Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000.

1.4 Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice dated 19.04.2016 was issued invoking the extended period under Section 11A(4) proposing recovery of duty of ₹35,19,901/-

for the period October 2011 to September 2012 along with interest and penalty under Section 11AC.

1.5 The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand, interest and imposed equivalent penalty holding that the activity amounted to manufacture and that suppression was established. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original, leading to the present appeal before this Tribunal.

2. The Ld. Consultant Mr. K. Bindusaran appeared for the Appellant and the Ld. Authorized Representative Mr.

Sanjay Kakkar, appeared for the Revenue.

3. The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted as follows: -

i. The entire proceedings are fundamentally misconceived as the activity undertaken by the Appellant does not amount to “manufacture” under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

ii. It was submitted that roofing sheets remain roofing sheets both before and after the process, and that profiling or embossing does not bring into existence a new product with a distinct name, character or use.

iii. Reliance was placed on a long line of binding precedents including:

a. CCE v. GTC Industries Ltd. (Bombay High Court)

b. Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India c. CCE v. Osnar Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court)

d. CCE v. S.R. Tissues Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court)

e. Prestige Engineering (India) Ltd. v. CCE (Supreme Court)

to contend that mere processing, cutting, shaping or improvement in quality does not constitute manufacture unless a new product with a distinct name, character and use emerges.

iv. It was further argued that the Department itself forced the Appellant to obtain Central Ex