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 fabrication of steel structurals by cutting, drilling and welding duty-paid raw materials resulted in manufacture of excisable goods, and whether the shed erected from such structurals was goods liable to central excise duty.
Analysis: The material on record showed that the Contractor received plates, channels, angles, joists and beams from the project, cut them to size, and assembled them by simple processes of cutting, drilling and welding into members such as trusses, purlins, columns, girders, walkways and bracings. Applying the settled test of manufacture, a process amounts to manufacture only when it brings into existence a new and distinct commercial commodity having a different name, character or use. The fabricated members retained the essential identity of the original steel materials and were only assemblies for erection work; they did not emerge as commercially different goods. The erected shed, once fixed to the concrete foundation and permanently embedded, became an immovable property and therefore did not answer the description of goods.
Conclusion: Fabrication of the steel structurals did not amount to manufacture of excisable goods, and the shed erected from them was not goods liable to duty.
Ratio Decidendi: For central excise, mere processing or assembly does not attract levy unless it results in a commercially new and distinct article, and an immovable structure erected at site is outside the scope of excisable goods.