TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Aluminum foil embossing in cigarette industry not 'manufacture' under Central Excise Act.</h1> The Tribunal concluded that the embossing process of aluminum foil in the cigarette industry does not amount to 'manufacture' under the Central Excise ... Manufacture Issues Involved:Interpretation of the term 'manufacture' under the Central Excise Act, 1944 in the context of changes in sub-heading classification due to operations/processes conducted on embossed cut to shape and size aluminum foil in the cigarette industry.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Interpretation of 'manufacture' under Central Excise ActThe main issue in this case revolves around whether the process of embossing cut to shape and size aluminum foil in the cigarette industry amounts to 'manufacture' under the Central Excise Act, 1944, leading to the imposition of excise duty. The Tribunal considered conflicting views on this matter, particularly focusing on changes in sub-heading classification due to the process employed.Analysis: The Tribunal referred a question to the Larger Bench regarding the interpretation of the term 'manufacture' in light of changes in sub-heading classification resulting from the process in question. The Tribunal noted a previous decision where such activity was held not to amount to manufacture solely based on a change in tariff entry. The Tribunal analyzed various legal precedents and arguments presented by both sides to determine whether the process in question qualifies as 'manufacture' under the Central Excise Act.Issue 2: Continuous Process and AssessmentAnother key issue raised was whether the process involved in embossing aluminum foil in the cigarette industry constitutes a single in situ process, making it impossible to assess the aluminum foil separately from the final product, i.e., the packed cigarette.Analysis: The respondent argued that the process is continuous and integrated, drawing analogies from relevant legal precedents and circulars to support the contention that aluminum foil cannot be assessed separately. The Tribunal examined the nature of the process, the lack of evidence demonstrating the emergence of a new product, and the assessment practices in the industry to determine the assessability of the aluminum foil separately.Conclusion:After considering the arguments, case laws, and lack of evidence presented by both parties, the Tribunal concluded that the embossing process of aluminum foil in the cigarette industry does not amount to 'manufacture' under the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal emphasized the integrated nature of the process, the continuous production line, and the absence of evidence supporting the emergence of a new product. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the decision that the activity in question does not trigger the levy of excise duty, aligning with the ruling in the case of C.C.E., Mumbai v. Godfrey Philips Ltd.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
