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>Boulder Crushing: Manufacturing for Excise Duty</h1> <h3>HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH</h3> The Tribunal held that crushing boulders into smaller stones amounts to manufacturing for Central Excise duty liability under the Central Excise Tariff ... Manufacture Issues involved:Whether the process of crushing stones amounts to manufacture for Central Excise duty liability.Detailed Analysis:1. Arguments by Appellant No. 1 (Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd.):- Appellant engaged in construction work, contends crushing stones is not manufacturing.- Refers to previous Tribunal decisions, different High Court judgments.- Emphasizes boulders and crushed stones are the same material.- Highlights lack of evidence from the Department to prove manufacturing.2. Arguments by Appellant No. 2 (Continental Construction Co. Ltd.):- Adopts arguments of Appellant No. 1 regarding the non-manufacturing nature of crushing stones.3. Counterarguments by Shri H.K. Jain for the Respondent:- Tribunal previously held crushing limestone is manufacturing.- Mentions consistent Tribunal view, citing relevant judgments.- Raises doubt on duty demand clarity for the entire quantity of stones.4. Response to Counterarguments by Appellants:- Cites Supreme Court judgment on new commodity creation for duty liability.- Argues no new product emerges from crushing stones.5. Judgment:- Tribunal acknowledges previous decision on Appellant No. 1's case.- Considers consistent Tribunal view on crushing limestone as manufacturing.- Differentiates Sales Tax Act judgments from Central Excise Act cases.- Refers to Supreme Court tests for manufacturing determination.- Concludes crushing boulders into smaller stones is manufacturing under CETA.6. Regarding Duty Demand and Penalty:- Appellant's plea on duty demand not substantiated with evidence.- No penalty imposed due to interpretation issue; penalty set aside.- All five appeals rejected except for penalty modification.This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the arguments presented by both parties, the counterarguments raised, the Tribunal's reasoning based on legal precedents and tests for manufacturing determination, and the final decision regarding the liability of crushed stones to Central Excise duty.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
