Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellant's Electro Static Water Treatment Units were machinery for the production of a commodity so as to qualify for concessional duty under the exemption notifications, and whether the process undertaken by the unit amounted to manufacture within the meaning of the applicable excise law.
Analysis: The product was found to be a descaling/water-treatment apparatus and not a machine producing water as a commodity. The exemption claim was based on Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 22, but that note applies only to natural or artificial mineral waters of headings 2201 and 2202. Since the appellant was not dealing with mineral water and the relevant process did not relate to those headings, the note could not be invoked to treat the activity as manufacture. The treatment did not convert the appellant's product into machinery for production of a commodity for the purpose of the exemption.
Conclusion: The claim for concessional duty was rejected and the issue was decided against the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in entirety, and the denial of concessional treatment under the notification was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: A water-treatment unit used for descaling does not become machinery for production of a commodity merely because it alters water quality, and Chapter Note 2 to Chapter 22 cannot be extended beyond mineral water to treat such activity as manufacture.