- (1.) These appeals raise common questions of law. For the sake of convenience, we shall be eliciting the facts from Civil Appeal Nos. 6999-7000 of 2003. The Appellant in this case is running a proprietorship concern which is engaged in the business of cutting larger steel plates into smaller size and shapes as required by the customers. The specification, size, etc., to which the larger size plates are to be cut into smaller sizes are provided by the customers, and the plates are also supplied by them to the Appellant. After cutting the plates into smaller plates as per the specifications provided, the same are supplied back to the customers. It is a matter of record that the cutting operation is undertaken with the help of gas cutting machines, which process is known as profile cutting.
(2.) The Appellant, under the belief that the aforesaid process does not amount to manufacture within the definition of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short) did not get himself registered under the said Act and therefore, was not paying any excise duty on the said produce. After this was detected by the Department, a show cause notice dated 1-11-1996 was issued to the Appellant covering the period from October, 1991 to September, 1996. By the said notice, the Appellant was called upon to show cause as to why Excise duty as well as the penalty etc., be not charged/imposed on the aforesaid process carried out by the Appellant during the said period as according to the Department it amounted to "manufacture". The Appellant submitted his reply denying the allegations contained therein.
(3.) From the reply, it becomes clear that two-fold defence was raised, first, that the process did not amount to manufacture within the definition of Section 2(f) of the Act and the second, that the show cause notice was barred by limitation as the notice could cover only a period of six months as provided Under Section 11A of the Act at the relevant time. The Appellant was given a hearing and thereafter Order-in-Original dated 11-7-1997 was passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the demand of duty raised in the show cause notice. Penalty was also imposed. The objection regarding limitation was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority taking shelter under proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act holding that it was the case of the suppression and misrepresentation by the Appellant and therefore, limitation period stood extended to five years, for initiating action against the Appellant. The Appellant preferred appeal against the said order before the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as 'CEGAT"). However, even the said appeal has been dismissed by the CEGAT vide judgment dated 24-3-2003. Challenging that order, the present appeal is preferred.;