Gujarat Reclaim & Rubber Products Limited And Others vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & ST, Surat-II And Others

Ramesh Nair, Member (J)

Limited issue involved in the present case is whether the Central Excise duty can be levied on crumbed rubber which is obtained from the rubber waste by the process of cracking, grinding and crushing etc.

Shri Vinay Kansara, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that as regards the Appeal No. E/10827/2013, the Company name has been changed from Gujarat Reclaim & Rubber Products Limited to GRP Limited. He also submitted certificate of incorporation, issued by Registrar of Companies, Gujarat at Ahmedabad.

As regards the merits of the case, he submits that issue is no more res-integra and the same has been decided in appellant’s own case, in number of decisions. He placed reliance on the following decisions:-

(a) Gujarat Reclaim Rubber Products Limited vs. CCE-1983 (14) ELT 2401 (T)

[The department's appeal was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1990 (45) ELT A67 (SC)]

(b) CCE vs. Gujarat Reclaim Rubber Products Limited - 2006 (195) ELT 44 (Tri.)

(c) Gujarat Reclaim Rubber Products Limited vs. CCE - 2009 (243) ELT 426 (Tri.)

(d) Final Order No. A/11097-11098/2022 dated 07.09.2022.

He submits that in view of the above since the issue has already been decided, these appeals may also be allowed.

Shri Himanshu P Shrimali, learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order.

We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the record. We find that issue is no more res-integra and in the same appellant’s case the matter has been decided time and again in the judgments cited supra by the appellant wherein it was held that the conversion of rubber waste into rubber powder and crumbed rubber does not amount to manufacture. Therefore the same is not liable to payment of excise duty. It is observed that lower authorities have demanded duty on the ground that there is amendment in Section 2(f) as regard the demand of duty on marketability. This issue has also been considered and it was held that first, the goods should be manufactured goods and thereafter the issue of marketability arises. In the present case, the process itself is held to be non-manufacturing and thereafter even though the goods are marketable, the same cannot be liable to payment of excise duty. Accordingly, the impugned orders are not sustainable, hence the same are set-aside and the appeals are allowed.

As regards the submissions made by learned Counsel for change of name of the appellant Company in Appeal No. E/10827/2013-DB, considering the certificate submitted by the appellant, the name of the Appellant Company stand changed from “Gujarat Reclaim & Rubber Products Limited” to “GRP LIMITED”