Thomas, J. - (1.) This appeals is in challenge of an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) repelling the contention of the appellant that the commodity 'commercial plywood' processed by the appellant is not liable to excise duty as the duty was paid for the plywood before its processing.
(2.) The case of the appellant company is the following. Appellant is engaged in processing commercial plywood by applying Phenol Formaldehyde Resin under 100 per cent heat and pressure and coats the plywood with wire mesh, either on one side or on both sides so as to make it slip proof commercial plywood. The product is mostly used in body building of vehicles or for flooring etc. On 3-9-1986, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise issued show cause notice to the appellant company, in which it was stated that since non-slip plywood is a different product it is liable to duty as falling under sub-heading 4408-90 (Chapter 44 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985). Appellant in the reply has explained that commercial plywood was once subjected to duty and hence cannot again be made dutiable merely on the strength of the processing done by the appellant. The processed commodity does not become a different product nor the processing exercise a manufacture according to the appellant. Some earlier proceedings, which culminated in refunding the duty collected on such products when the department later realised that no duty was chargeable on such commodity, have also been relied on by the appellant to bolster up its stand.
(3.) The Assistant Collector took the view that the slip-proof commercial plywood (made after carrying out the processing work) is a different product and so is liable to duty under the relevant subheading of the Schedule to the Act.;