A.K.SIKRI,J - (1.) The assessee/manufacturer in the instant appeals, has commended this Court to decide the following questions of law which arise for consideration in these appeals: (a) Whether the process of cold -rolling undertaken by the assessee on the hot -rolled stainless steel patta/pattis amount to 'manufacture' within the meaning of Section 2(f)(i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (b) Whether the Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) was correct in holding that the process of cold -rolling of stainless steel patta/pattis amounts to manufacture in view of Chapter No.4 of Chapter No.72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, when the said Chapter Note was not even referred to or relied upon in the show cause notice. (c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 11A of the Act was invokable for demanding duty from the assessee and for imposing penalty on the assessee.
(2.) The factual background under which the appeals have been preferred by the appellants can be captured by taking note of the following salient features:
(3.) The assessee is engaged in the process of cold -rolling of hot -rolled stainless steel patta/patti on job work basis. As per the assessee, for this purpose, it receives hot -rolled SS patta/patti from other manufacturers and thereafter undertakes the process of cold -rolling in the cold -rolling mill. The purpose of cold -rolling is only to reduce the gauge of the SS patta/patti. After so reducing the gauge by the process of cold - rolling, the SS patta/patti are sent back to the suppliers. For this purpose, the assessee receives job charges from the suppliers of the materials. The assessee claims that apart from cold -rolling, no other process was undertaken by the assessee on the SS patta/patti. The assessee had undertaken this activity during the period between November 1995 and March 1997. It is also the case of the assessee that by the process of cold -rolling, only the gauge of the SS patta/patti gets reduced and no new commercially identifiable commodity comes into existence, and the appellants were under the bona fide belief that the process of cold -rolling does not amount to manufacture under the Central Excise Act and accordingly did not take out central excise registration and did not discharge any central excise duty liability.;