M/S. SERVO-MED INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. Vs COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI
Bench: A.K. SIKRI,ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
Case number: C.A. No.-000583-000583 / 2005
Diary number: 22383 / 2004
Advocates: RAJESH KUMAR Vs
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.583 OF 2005
M/S. SERVO-MED INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. …APPELLANT
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI. ...RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
R.F. Nariman, J.
1. Between June 1995 and March 1997, the appellants
purchased syringes and needles in bulk from the open market.
They would then sterilize the syringes and the needles and put
one syringe and one needle in an unassembled form in a
printed plastic pouch. The syringe and the needle were
capable of use only once and, hence, were disposable. The
plastic pouches so packed were sold to an industrial customer,
namely, M/s. Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd. The pouches bore
1
Page 2
the brand name ‘Behring’. The brand name ‘Behring’ belonged
to the purchaser.
2. By a show cause notice dated 25.1.1996, the Department
asked the assessee to show cause as to why the said syringes
and needles, (which had already borne the payment of excise
duty in the hands of their manufacturers), be made to pay
excise duty again as a result of sterilization. The show cause
notice alleged that sterilization brings about a change in the
character of the final product, which now becomes disposable
syringes and needles. Therefore, a new commodity having a
different character has come into existence. In their reply to the
show cause notice dated 1.10.1996, the petitioners claimed that
the activity of sterilization would not amount to manufacture.
They said that no new product comes into existence by merely
sterilizing disposable syringes and needles which continue to
be disposable syringes and needles post-sterilization. No new
product, therefore, came into existence as a result of
sterilization.
3. By an order dated 31.12.1997, the Assistant
Commissioner Central Excise held that the process of
2
Page 3
sterilization was essential to complete manufacture before the
products are sold in the market. This being so, the process of
sterilization was found to be an integral and inextricable part of
the manufacturing process to make the product marketable. It
was further held that the process of sterilization brings about a
transformation of the product by making something non-sterile
sterile.
4. By his order dated 25.2.1999, the Commissioner of
Central Excise (Appeals) set aside the said order, reasoning
that the process of sterilization does not bring about any
change in the basic structure of syringes and needles even
though post-sterilization the value of the product gets
enhanced. He further held that under Section 2(f) of the
Central Excise Act, there is no mention of the test of integral or
inextricable process and found that the wrong test had been
applied to arrive at the wrong result.
5. The CESTAT in turn set aside the order of the
Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) observing:
“An Article with distinct brand name and separate end use/quality has emerged by the
3
Page 4
activity undertaken. The use/character of a ‘syringe’ which was brought and which emerged has changed. While the goods brought were not fit for use on Humans Medical Needles as made were not usable till sterilized. The commercial identity nature use and understanding has changed, manufacturing has taken place, excise levy is attracted.”
6. Shri Lakshmikumaran, learned advocate appearing on
behalf of the appellant has argued before us that the judgment
of the Tribunal is wrong on first principles. The Tribunal has
failed to appreciate that a disposable syringe and needle
continues to be a disposable syringe and needle even after the
process of sterilization and, therefore, the basic test of a new
article emerging as a result of a process, being a transformation
of an article into something new, which has a distinctive name,
character or use is clearly absent in the present case. He cited
a number of judgments to buttress his submissions.
7. Ms. Shirin Khajuria, learned counsel who appeared for
the respondent, countered these submissions and said that it
was clear that the articles in question could not be used
commercially until a process of sterilization had been
undergone. This being so, it is clear that the process of
4
Page 5
sterilization is an important integrated and/or ancillary process
without which the end product had no commercial use and,
therefore, applying the said test, it is clear that the process of
sterilization leads to manufacture. She cited a number of
judgments which we will refer to presently.
8. Regard being had to the issue being a ticklish one, we
need first to delve into a few basic principles.
Distinction between manufacture and marketability
9. A duty of excise is levied on the manufacture of excisable
goods. “Excisable goods” are those goods which are included
in the schedules of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
“Excisable goods” brings in the concept of goods that are
marketable, that is goods capable of being sold in the market.
On the other hand, manufacture is distinct from sale-ability.
Manufacture takes place on the application of one or more
processes. Each process may lead to a change in the goods,
but every change does not amount to manufacture. There must
be something more – there must be a transformation by which
something new and different comes into being, that is, there
5
Page 6
must now emerge an article which has a distinctive name,
character or use.
When transformation does not take place.
10. When a finished product cannot conveniently be used in
the form in which it happens to be, and it is required to be
changed into various shapes and sizes so that it can
conveniently be used, no transformation takes place if the
character and the end use of the first product continue to be the
same. An illustration of this principle is brought out by the
judgment in CCE, New Delhi v. S.R. Tissues, 2005 (186)
E.L.T. 385 (S.C.). On facts, in the said case, jumbo rolls of
tissue paper were cut into various shapes and sizes so that
they could be used as table napkins, facial tissues and toilet
rolls. This Court held that there was no manufacture as the
character and the end use of the tissue paper in the jumbo roll
and the tissue paper in the table napkin, facial tissue and toilet
roll remains the same.
11. Another example of when transformation does not take
place is when foreign matter is removed from an article or
6
Page 7
additions are made to the article to preserve it or increase its
shelf life.
12. In MMTC v. Union of India, 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1542 (S.C.),
this Court dealt with the separating of wolfram ore from rock to
make it usable. It was held that the process of separation and
sorting out pieces of wolfram or by washing or magnetic
separation would not amount to a manufacturing process.
Wolfram ore does not cease to be an ore even though by the
aforesaid processes it may become concentrated wolfram ore.
13. In Mineral Oil Corporation v. CCE, Kanpur, 1999 (114)
E.L.T. 166 (Tribunal), the facts were that used transformer oil,
which by applying processes for removal of impurities
therefrom, is again made usable as transformer oil. Both before
and after the said processes, transformer oil remained as
transformer oil. That being so, it was held that no new and
distinct commodity has come into existence consequent to the
process undertaken. The test for determining whether
manufacture can be said to have taken place is whether the
commodity which is subjected to the process of manufacture
can no longer be regarded as the original commodity but is
7
Page 8
recognized by the trade as a new and distinct commodity. This
Court dismissed the civil appeal from the aforesaid judgment.
This case is instructive in that it is clear that transformer oil, in
its used stage, could not be used owing to the impurities
therein. Any process of rendering such article usable would not
be a manufacturing process, as there is no change in the
essential character of the goods which remain as transformer
oil which now becomes usable.
14. In Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of India, 1995 (75) ELT 35
(S.C.), soap treatment of grey cotton duck/canvas was held not
to be a process which amounted to manufacture. The judgment
states:
“3. The process has been described in the impugned order in the following words - For processing on soap treatment the party uses soaps/soap flakes which are diluted in plain water in a tank. This solution is transferred to a Soaping Machine operated by power where different colours are added. The fabrics are then dipped in the solution which is heated with steam. After the colouring treatment and soap impregnation the wet fabrics are dried up with the aid of steam on passing the fabrics through rollers fitted with the aforesaid Soaping Machine. 4. In our opinion the said process cannot be said to be one which results in changing the identity of the
8
Page 9
cloth which is subject to the said treatment and the said process does not give rise to a new product which is marketable. The said process cannot, therefore, be regarded as a manufacturing process. We find that the Central Government itself, in another matter relating to M/s. Premier Tyres Ltd. has passed an Order on 17-5-1977 (page 83 of Paper Book) wherein, it has been held that the transformation brought about the dipping of cotton fabrics in a soap solution is not a permanent one; it is not an operation which results in the production of a new article which could be bought and sold as such in the market.”
15. In Dalmia Industries Limited v. CCE, Jaipur, 1999 (112)
E.L.T. 305 (Tribunal), different articles of feeding bottles were
put together in a single pack. Thus, bottles, feeder nipples,
bottle lids and plastic parts were put together in a combined
pack and the product was sold in the brand name of “Milk care
Designer Feeder”. All these parts were put together only after
sterilization by ultra violet rays. The Tribunal held that the
various parts that had been put together were already finished
products and packing after sterilization would not bring into
existence any new product as each of the items had already
come into existence as individual items. It was further held that
sterilization was only to improve the hygiene of the product and
that since no change occurs in the name, character or use of
9
Page 10
the product, a new product does not come into existence. This
Court dismissed the civil appeal filed against the aforesaid
judgment on 1.3.2005.
16. Examples of additions made to the article to preserve it or
increase its shelf life are to be found in Tungabhadra
Industries Ltd. v. CTO, (1961) 2 SCR 14 and M/s. Maruti
Suzuki India Ltd. v. CCE, 2015 (318) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.). In the
Tungabhadra case, it was held that hydrogenated oil continued
to be groundnut oil despite there being an intermolecular
change in the content of the substance of the oil due to
hydrogenation. It was held that oil made from groundnut
continued as such despite the hardening process of
hydrogenation. In its essential character, it was held that such
hydrogenated oil continued to be groundnut oil. The process of
hydrogenation only increased the shelf life of the said oil.
17. Similarly in the Maruti Suzuki case, it was held that
bumpers and grills of motor vehicles continue to be the same
commodity after ED coating which would increase the shelf life
of the said bumpers and grills and provide anti rust treatment to
the same. No new commodity known to the market as such
10
Page 11
had come into being merely on account of the value addition of
the ED coating.
Retaining of essential character test.
18. In M/s. Satnam Overseas Ltd. v. Commissioner of
Central Excise, New Delhi (Civil Appeal No.8958 of 2003), it
was held that as the essential character of the product had not
changed, there would be no manufacture. In that case, the
product was a combination of raw rice, dehydrated vegetables
and spices in the name of rice and spice. It was held that the
said product in its primary and essential character was sold in
the market as rice only, despite the addition of dehydrated
vegetables and certain spices. Further, the rice remained in
raw form and in order to make it edible it had to be cooked like
any other cereal. As we have already seen, the same test was
applied in Tungabhadra case (supra) and in Deputy
Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue
(Taxes), Ernakulam v. Pio Food Packers, (1980) 3 SCR 1271.
In that case, the process undertaken was to remove the
inedible portions of Pineapple together with its outer cover and
then slice such Pineapple and can the same after adding sugar
11
Page 12
as a preservative. It is important to note that the cans were
sealed under high temperature and then put into boiling water
for sterilization. It was held that there was no manufacture
inasmuch as the essential character of the Pineapple had not
changed. The Court said:
“Commonly, manufacture is the end result of one or more processes through which the original commodity is made to pass. The nature and extent of processing may vary from one case to another, and indeed there may be several stages of processing and perhaps a different kind of processing at each stage. With each process suffered, the original commodity experiences a change. But it is only when the change, or a series of changes, take the commodity to the point where commercially it can no longer be regarded as the original commodity but instead is recognised as a new and distinct Article that a manufacture can be said to take place. Where there is no essential difference in identity between the original commodity and the processed Article it is not possible to say that one commodity has been consumed in the manufacture of another. Although it has undergone a degree of processing, it must be regarded as still retaining its original identity.”
19. Interestingly, a line was drawn between cases in which
the essential character had changed and those in which no
such change had taken place in the following terms:
12
Page 13
“5. A large number of cases has been placed before us by the parties, and in each of them the same principle has been applied: Does the processing of the original commodity bring into existence a commercially different and distinct article? Some of the cases where it was held by this Court that a different commercial article had come into existence include Anwarkhan Mehboob Co. v. The State of Bombay and Ors. (where raw tobacco was manufactured into bidi patti), A. Hajee Abdul Shukoor and Co. v. The State of Madras (raw hides and skins constituted a different commodity from dressed hides and skins with different physical properties), The State of Madras v. Swasthik Tobacco Factory (raw tobacco manufactured into chewing tobacco) and Ganesh Trading Co. Karnal v. State of Haryana and Anr., (paddy dehusked into rice). On the other side, cases where this Court has held that although the original commodity has under gone a degree of processing it has not lost its original identity include Tungabhadra Industries Ltd., Kurnool v. Commercial Tax Officer, Kurnool (where hydrogenated groundnut oil was regarded as groundnut oil) and Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Harbiles Rai and sons (where bristles plucked from pigs, boiled, washed with soap and other chemicals and sorted out in bundles according to their size and colour were regarded as remaining the same commercial commodity, pigs bristles).”
Test of no commercial user without further process
20. In Brakes India Ltd. v. Superintendent of Central
Excise, (1997) 10 SCC 717, the commodity in question was
brake lining blanks. It was held on facts that such blanks could
13
Page 14
not be used as brake linings by themselves without the
processes of drilling, trimming and chamfering. It was in this
situation that the test laid down was that if by adopting a
particular process a transformation takes place which makes
the product have a character and use of its own which it did not
bear earlier, then such process would amount to manufacture
irrespective of whether there was a single process or several
processes.
21. Similarly in Union of India v. J.G. Glass, 1998 (97) E.L.T.
5 (S.C.), this Court held that plain bottles are themselves
commercial commodities which can be sold and used as such.
By the process of printing names or logos on the said bottles,
the basic character of the commodity does not change, they
continue to be bottles. The Court said:
“16. On an analysis of the aforesaid rulings, a two-fold test emerges for deciding whether the process is that of "manufacture". First, whether by the said process a different commercial commodity comes into existence or whether the identity of the original commodity ceases to exist; secondly, whether, the commodity which was already in existence will serve no purpose but for the said process. In other words, whether the commodity already in existence will be of no commercial use but for the said process. In the present case, the
14
Page 15
plain bottles are themselves commercial commodities and can be sold and used as such. By the process of printing names or logos on the bottles, the basic character of the commodity does not change. They continue to be bottles. It cannot be said that but for the process of printing, the bottles will serve no purpose or are of no commercial use.”
22. Similarly in Sterling Foods v. State of Karnataka, (1986)
26 ELT 3 (S.C.), raw shrimps/prawns/lobsters after various
processes became fit for human consumption. Prior to such
processing, they could not be used as articles of food.
However, the aforesaid processes did not lead to a finding that
there was manufacture inasmuch as shrimps/prawns/lobsters
identity continued as such even after the aforesaid processes.
23. In Crane Betel Nut Powder Works v. Commissioner,
2007 (210) E.L.T. 171 (S.C.), whole betel nuts could not be
consumed by human beings. It is only after a process of cutting
them into smaller pieces and sweetening them with oil that they
become fit for human consumption. It was held that the
aforesaid process would not amount to manufacture as betel
nuts continued to be the same even after the aforesaid process
resulting in no transformation of the commodity in question.
15
Page 16
24. It is important to understand the correct ratio of the
judgment in the J.G.Glass case. This judgment does not hold
that merely by application of the second test without more
manufacture comes into being. The Court was at pains to point
out that a twofold test had emerged for deciding whether the
process is that of manufacture. The first test is extremely
important – that by a process, a different commercial
commodity must come into existence as a result of the identity
of the original commodity ceasing to exist. The second test,
namely that the commodity which was already in existence will
serve no purpose but for a certain process must be understood
in its true perspective. It is only when a different and/or finished
product comes into existence as a result of a process which
makes the said product commercially usable that the second
test laid down in the judgment leads to manufacture. Thus
understood, this judgment does not lead to the result that
merely because the unsterilized syringe and needle is of no
commercial use without sterilization, the process of sterilization
which would make it commercially usable would result in the
sterilization process being a process which would amount to
16
Page 17
manufacture. If the original commodity i.e. syringes and
needles continue as such post-sterilization, the second test
would not lead to the conclusion that the process of sterilization
is a process which leads to manufacture. This is because, in all
cases, there has first to be a transformation in the original
article which transformation brings about a distinctive or
different use in the article.
The test of integrated process without which manufacture would be impossible or commercially inexpedient.
25. It is at this point that the decision contained in Collector
of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Rajasthan State Chemical
Works, (1991) 4 SCC 473 needs explanation. This Court was
concerned with the language of a certain notification which read
as follows:
“In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts all goods falling under Item 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) in or in relation to the manufacture of which no process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power, from whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon.”
It was held:
17
Page 18
“13. Manufacture thus involves series of processes. Process in manufacture or in relation to manufacture implies not only the production but the various stages through which the raw material is subjected to change by different operations. It is the cumulative effect of the various processes to which the raw material is subjected to (sic that the) manufactured product emerges. Therefore, each step towards such production would be a process in relation to the manufacture. Where any particular process is so integrally connected with the ultimate production of goods that but for that process manufacture or processing of goods would be impossible or commercially inexpedient, that process is one in relation to the manufacture.
15. In J.K. Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. v. STO [(1965) 1 SCR 900 : AIR 1965 SC 1310 : (1965) 16 STC 563] , this Court in construing the expression ‘in the manufacture of goods’ held thus: (SCR pp. 906-07)
“But there is no warrant for limiting the meaning of the expression ‘in the manufacture of goods’ to the process of production of goods only. The expression ‘in the manufacture’ takes in within its compass, all processes which are directly related to the actual production.”
16. The Court further held thus: (SCR p. 905)
“The expression ‘in the manufacture of goods’ would normally encompass the entire process carried on by the dealer of converting raw materials into finished goods. Where any particular process is so integrally connected with the ultimate production of goods that but for that process, manufacture or processing of goods would be commercially inexpedient, goods required in that process would, in our judgment, fall within the expression ‘in the manufacture of goods’.”
18
Page 19
21. The transfer of raw material to the reacting vessel is a preliminary operation but it is part of a continuous process but for which the manufacture would be impossible. The handling of the raw materials for the purpose of such transfer is then integrally connected with the process of manufacture. The handling for the purpose of transfer may be manual or mechanical but if power is used for such operation, it cannot be denied that an activity has been carried on with the aid of power in the manufacturing process. The use of diesel pump sets to fill the pans with brine is an activity with the aid of power and that activity is in relation to the manufacture. It is not correct to say that the process of manufacture starts only when evaporation starts. The preliminary steps like pumping brine and filling the salt pans form integral part of the manufacturing process even though the change in the raw material commences only when evaporation takes place. The preliminary activity cannot be disintegrated from the rest of the operations in the whole process of manufacture. Similarly, when coke and lime are taken to the platform in definite proportions for the purpose of mixing, such operation is a step in the manufacturing process. It precedes the feeding of the mixture into the kiln where the burning takes place. The whole process is an integrated one consisting of the lifting of the raw materials to the platform mixing coke and lime and then feeding into the kiln and burning. These operations are so interrelated that without any one of these operations manufacturing process is impossible to be completed. Therefore, if power is used in any one of these operations or any one of the operations is carried on with the aid of power, it is a case where in or in relation to the manufacture the process is carried on with the aid of power.
19
Page 20
25. Thus “processing” may be an intermediate stage in manufacture and until some change has taken place and the commodity retains a continuing substantial identity through the processing stage, we cannot say that it has been manufactured. That does not, however, mean that any operation in the course of such process is not in relation to the manufacture. While interpreting the same exemption notification in Standard Fireworks Industries v. Collector of Central Excise [(1987) 1 SCC 600 : 1987 SCC (Tax) 138 : (1987) 28 ELT 56] , it was held that manufacture of fireworks requires cutting of steel wires and the treatment of papers and, therefore, it is a process for manufacture of goods in question. The notification purports to allow exemption from duty only when in relation to the manufacture of goods no process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power. It was observed that cutting of steel wires or the treatment of the papers is a process for the manufacture of goods in question.
26. We are, therefore, of the view that if any operation in the course of manufacture is so integrally connected with the further operations which result in the emergence of manufactured goods and such operation is carried on with the aid of power, the process in or in relation to the manufacture must be deemed to be one carried on with the aid of power. In this view of the matter, we are unable to accept the contention that since the pumping of the brine into the salt pans or the lifting of coke and limestone with the aid of power does not bring about any change in the raw material, the case is not taken out of the notification. The exemption under the notification is not available in these cases. Accordingly, we allow these appeals. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.”
20
Page 21
26. It is clear that the said judgment does not deal with
manufacture alone. It deals with various processes carried on
without the aid of power in relation to manufacture. The Court’s
ultimate holding was that the use of diesel pump sets to fill pans
with brine is an activity which occurred with the aid of power
and is in relation to manufacture. That is why it held that the
process of manufacture of common salt from brine in salt pans
is an integrated one whose operations are so inter-related that
without any one of these operations the manufacturing process
could not be completed. If, therefore, any one of several
processes in relation to manufacture is carried on with the aid
of power, the exemption under the notification would not apply.
It was in that context that this Court held that where any
particular process is so integrally connected with the ultimate
production of goods that but for that process, the manufacture
of such goods would be impossible or commercial inexpedient.
Two things need to be noticed here. One is that what is spoken
about is raw material which is subjected to several processes
after which a final manufactured product emerges and two that
the test of integral connection of a particular process with the
21
Page 22
ultimate production of goods that but for such process
manufacture of goods would become impossible or
commercially inexpedient was applied in the context of a
process being in relation to manufacture.
Conclusion:
27. The case law discussed above falls into four neat
categories.
(1) Where the goods remain exactly the same
even after a particular process, there is obviously no
manufacture involved. Processes which remove
foreign matter from goods complete in themselves
and/or processes which clean goods that are
complete in themselves fall within this category.
(2) Where the goods remain essentially the same
after the particular process, again there can be no
manufacture. This is for the reason that the original
article continues as such despite the said process
and the changes brought about by the said process.
(3) Where the goods are transformed into
something different and/or new after a particular
process, but the said goods are not marketable.
Examples within this group are the Brakes India
22
Page 23
case and cases where the transformation of goods
having a shelf life which is of extremely small
duration. In these cases also no manufacture of
goods takes place.
(4) Where the goods are transformed into goods
which are different and/or new after a particular
process, such goods being marketable as such. It
is in this category that manufacture of goods can be
said to take place.
28. The instant case falls within the first category
aforementioned. This is a case of manufacture of disposable
syringes and needles which are used for medical purposes.
These syringes and needles, like in the J.G. Glass case and
unlike the Brakes India case, are finished or complete in
themselves. They can be used or sold for medical purposes in
the form in which they are. The fact that medically speaking
they are only used after sterilization would not bring this case
within the ratio of the Brakes India case. All articles used
medically in, let us say, surgical operations, must of necessity
first be sterilized.
23
Page 24
29. The Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing,
and Allied Health, Fourth Edition by Benjamin F. Miller and
Claire Brackman Keane defines ‘sterilization’ as follows:
“In sterilizing objects or substances, the high resistance of bacterial spore cells must be taken into account. Most dangerous bacteria are destroyed at a temperature of 50° to 60°C (122° to 140°F). Therefore, pasteurization of a fluid, which is the application of heat at about 60°C, destroys disease-causing bacteria. However, temperatures almost twice as high are usually required to destroy the spore cells.
The discovery that heat, in the form of flame, steam, or hot water, kills bacteria made possible the advances of modern surgery, which is based on freedom from microorganisms, or asepsis, and prevention of contamination. Sterilization of all equipment used during an operation, and of anything that in any way may touch the operative area, is carried out scrupulously in hospitals. Physicians and nurses wear sterile clothing. Instruments are sterilized by boiling, by chemical antiseptics, or by autoclaving.
In a physician’s office needles for injections and any instruments used for treatment of wounds or other surgical procedures are also carefully sterilized, and other aseptic techniques are observed.”
24
Page 25
In the Oxford Dictionary of Nursing, ‘sterilization’ is
defined as:
“the process by which all types of micro-organisms (including spores) are destroyed. This is achieved by the use of heat, radiation, chemicals, or filtration.”
30. The added process of sterilization does not mean that
such articles are not complete articles in themselves or that the
process of sterilization produces a transformation in the original
articles leading to new articles known to the market as such. A
surgical equipment such as a knife continues to be a surgical
knife even after sterilization. If the Department were right,
every time such instruments are sterilized, the same surgical
instrument is brought forth again and again by way of
manufacture and excisable duty is chargeable on the same.
This would lead to an absurd result and fly in the face of
common sense1. If a surgical instrument is being used five
times a day, it cannot be said that the same instrument has 1 The expression “Flies in the face of common sense” is taken from an interesting judgment of the
House of Lords reported in R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1995) 2 All ER 244. Lord Browne Wilkinson was faced with an argument that Section 171 of the Criminal Justice Act of 1988 vests in the Secretary of State a discretion for bringing into force certain sections of the said Act. It was argued that the Secretary of State had an absolute and unfettered discretion to bring in or not to bring in the said Sections. This argument was rejected stating that it was not only constitutionally dangerous but also flies in the face of common sense (at page 253).
25
Page 26
suffered a process which amounts to manufacture in which
case excise duty would be liable to be paid on such instruments
five times over on any given day of use. Further, what is to be
remembered here is that the disposable syringe and needle in
question is a finished product in itself. Sterilization does not
lead to any value addition in the said product. All that the
process of sterilization does is to remove bacteria which settles
on the syringe’s and needle’s surface, which process does not
bring about a transformation of the said articles into something
new and different. Such process of removal of foreign matters
from a product complete in itself would not amount to
manufacture but would only be a process which is for the more
convenient use of the said product. In fact, no transformation of
the original articles into different articles at all takes place.
Neither the character nor the end use of the syringe and needle
has changed post-sterilization. The syringe and needle retains
its essential character as such even after sterilization.
31. Ms. Shirin Khajuria then cited a few other judgments. The
judgment in Laminated Packings (P) Ltd. v. CCE, 1990 (49)
ELT 326 held:
26
Page 27
“4. Lamination, indisputably by the well settled principles of excise law, amounts to ‘manufacture’. This question, in our opinion, is settled by the decisions of this Court. Reference may be made to the decision of this Court in Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [(1985) 3 SCC 314: 1985 SCC (Tax) 416] . Reference may also be made to the decision of this Court in CCE v. Krishna Carbon Paper Co. [(1989) 1 SCC 150: 1989 SCC (Tax) 42: (1988) 37 ELT 480] We are, therefore, of the opinion that by process of lamination of kraft paper with polyethylene different goods come into being. Laminated kraft paper is distinct, separate and different goods known in the market as such from the kraft paper.
5. Counsel for the appellant sought to contend that the kraft paper was duty paid goods and there was no change in the essential characteristic or the user of the paper after lamination. The fact that the duty has been paid on the kraft paper is irrelevant for consideration of the issue before us. If duty has been paid, then benefit or credit for the duty paid would be available to the appellant under Rule 56-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
6. The further contention urged on behalf of the appellant that the goods belong to the same entry is also not relevant because even if the goods belong to the same entry, the goods are different identifiable goods, known as such in the market. If that is so, the manufacture occurs and if manufacture takes place, it is dutiable. ‘Manufacture’ is bringing into being goods as known in the excise laws, that is to say, known in the market having distinct, separate and identifiable function. On this score, in our opinion, there is sufficient evidence. If that is the position, then the appellant was liable to pay duty. We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that the order of the CEGAT impugned in this appeal does not contain any error.
27
Page 28
The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.”
32. This judgment again does not take us any further. It was
found on the evidence led in that case that laminated kraft
paper is a distinct and separate product known in the market as
such and is apart from kraft paper.
33. CCE, Meerut, v. Kapri International (P) Ltd., (2002) 4
SCC 710, is a judgment in which cotton fabrics from a running
length were cut into pieces which formed new articles like bed
sheets, bed spreads and table clothes. On facts there, it was
held that new commodities had emerged which had a definite
commercial identity in the market and that the raw material (that
is cotton fabrics) having suffered payment of excise duty would
make no difference to the finished products also being liable for
payment of excise duty.
34. Judged therefore from the view point of the law discussed
in this judgment, it is clear that the cryptic judgment dated
28
Page 29
18.6.2004 has not applied the law correctly. The appeal is
allowed and the impugned judgment is hereby set aside.
……………………….J. (A.K. Sikri)
……………………….J. (R.F. Nariman)
New Delhi; May 7, 2015
29