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 cutting printed labels to required size at the Munger unit amounted to manufacture and justified classification under sub-heading 4823.90 instead of sub-heading 4821.00, and consequent duty demand.
Analysis: The activity at the Munger unit was limited to guillotining or cutting larger printed sheets received from another unit into the required label size. No further printing or processing was undertaken there. The goods continued to answer the description of labels, and the record showed that further conversion into packing material took place only at the Nepal unit. Mere cutting of larger sheets into convenient sizes does not, by itself, bring into existence a new commercial commodity with a distinct name, character, or use. On the facts found, the Revenue had not established that manufacture occurred at the Munger unit.
Conclusion: The process at the Munger unit did not amount to manufacture, the goods remained classifiable under sub-heading 4821.00, and the duty demand based on classification under sub-heading 4823.90 was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Mere cutting of printed sheets into required sizes, without emergence of a new commercially distinct product, does not constitute manufacture for central excise purposes.