Mayur Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

1. these appeals are by the holder of the power of attorney of the partner of the firm. the assessee buys scraps of tinned steel, which contain on it a very thin coating of tin and by subjecting this scrap to electrolysis recover the tin content in the coat. two products, therefore, result, tin and scrap without tin. in the order impugned in the appeal, the collector has held that this resulted in the manufacture of tin and of scrap.2. the common advocate for both the appellants does not dispute that manufacture of tin has taken place. he however disputes any manufacture of scrap. what was received by the appellant and returned was scrap.only difference being microscopic quantity of tin amounting to less than one-tenth of 1% by weight of the scrap was removed. what was received and what was removed by the appellant was therefore scrap.3. we are not able to see how any scrap has been manufactured by the appellant merely by removal of small quantity of tin from the scrap it received. the collector's statement in the order that by such removal, the scrap has been rendered fit for melting in iron and steel furnace by implying that it earlier was not, is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. unless, by applying the accepted test that a new commodity emerges which has a nomenclature, use and identity, manufacture is taken place. the fact that some process was undertaken does not itself justify the product is considered to be a manufactured product. this tribunal in its earlier decision has taken the same view.4. it is not disputed the manufacture by the appellant was within the exemption limit of rs. 30.00 lacs contained in the notification 175/86 and no duty was payable.5. accordingly, we allow the appeal, set aside the demand for duty and penalty imposed on both the appellants. consequential relief.