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>Fabric conversion not 'manufacture' under Central Excise Act. Duty demand set aside.</h1> <h3>Tristar Creative Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commr. of C. Ex., Noida</h3> Tristar Creative Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commr. of C. Ex., Noida - 2017 (357) E.L.T. 499 (Tri. - All.) Issues:1. Whether converting canvas fabric into various usable forms amounts to manufacture and is liable to excise duty.2. Whether the processes undertaken by the appellant constitute 'manufacture' as defined under the Central Excise Act.3. Whether the duty demand is barred by limitation.4. Whether penalties imposed on the appellant company's Director and President are justified.Analysis:Issue 1:The appeals were filed against the Order-in-Appeal holding that converting canvas fabric into Canvas Frame, Canvas Board, and Canvas Pad amounts to manufacture and is liable to excise duty. The appellant, engaged in processing canvas fabric, argued that the processes do not amount to manufacture as the essential character of the canvas does not change. The Revenue issued show cause notices demanding duty, contending that the processes undertaken amount to manufacture. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed duty demand for specific periods and imposed penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) partially allowed the appeal, exempting duty on Canvas Roll but upholding it on other products, remanding for re-calculation. The Tribunal considered the processes adopted and held that no transformation to a new product occurs, following the Supreme Court's definition of 'manufacture,' setting aside the duty demand and penalties.Issue 2:The appellant argued that the processes of cutting and pasting do not result in a new commodity with distinctive name, character, or use, citing relevant legal precedents. The Revenue claimed that the processes amount to manufacture. The Tribunal, applying the two-fold test from legal precedents, concluded that the appellant's processes do not create a new commercial commodity or change the basic character of the canvas fabric, thus not constituting 'manufacture.' The demand was also held to be time-barred, as the Revenue was aware of the appellant's activities. Consequently, the duty demand was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with appropriate relief.Issue 3:The Tribunal found that the duty demand was barred by limitation as the Revenue was aware of the appellant's activities, rendering the demand invalid. Accordingly, the demand was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief as per the law.Issue 4:Regarding penalties imposed on the Director and President of the appellant company, the Tribunal found no mala fide intentions and set aside the penalties. The appeals of the Director and President were allowed with consequential relief in accordance with the law.This detailed analysis of the judgment comprehensively covers the issues involved, the arguments presented, and the Tribunal's findings and conclusions, preserving the legal terminology and significant details from the original text.
TaxTMI 