TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Printing on Aluminum Tubes Deemed Manufacturing Process: Tribunal Overturns Collector's Decision</h1> <h3>COLLR. OF C. EX., BOMBA Versus UNIVERSAL CANS & CONTAINERS LTD.</h3> The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal against the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals)'s decision that lacquering and printing of aluminium ... Manufacture - Appeal to Tribunal - Hearing - Old matter Issues:1. Whether lacquering and printing of aluminium collapsible extruded tube constitute a process of manufacture prior to the amendment to Section 2(f) and Tariff Item No. 27(f) by Section 45 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980Rs.Analysis:The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal dated 29-1-1987, passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The Collector had opined that lacquering and printing of aluminium collapsible extruded tubes did not amount to a manufacturing process before the amendment to Section 2(f) and Tariff Item No. 27(f) by Section 45 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980. The Collector held that the amendment was only prospective and not retrospective.The matter was scheduled for a hearing on 21-11-1996. The appellants/Revenue were represented by Shri M. Jayaraman, JDR, while no one appeared for the respondents, M/s. Universal Cans & Containers Ltd. Despite the absence of the respondents, the Tribunal proceeded to hear the matter on its merits due to its age and the prior notice served to the respondents.Shri M. Jayaraman, JDR, contended that the issue was settled by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Deepak Extrusion v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, where it was held that lacquering and printing transformed plain tubes into a new commodity with distinct features. This decision was supported by the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. Metal Box Co. of India Ltd., emphasizing the inclusion of charges for printing and lacquering in the assessable value of tubes.Based on the precedents set by the Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court, the Tribunal concluded that the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had erred in his decision. The impugned order-in-appeal was set aside, and the appeal by the Revenue was allowed.
TaxTMI 
