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 assembling, testing and labelling of machinery received in disassembled form amounted to manufacture so as to justify the demand of central excise duty and the related penalty.
Analysis: The evidence on record did not support the finding that the assessee had manufactured the goods. The materials indicated that the goods were received in disassembled condition for convenience of transport and were only assembled, tested, labelled and cleared. The assessee had no infrastructure for manufacture, and the reliance placed on certain statements was weakened by cross-examination and lack of cross-examination of another deponent. Note 6 of Section XVI of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, was held inapplicable on these facts because mere assembly of disassembled machinery did not amount to conversion of incomplete goods into finished articles for the purpose of manufacture.
Conclusion: The finding of manufacture was unsustainable, and the demand of duty as well as the revised penalty were set aside in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the impugned goods were not shown to have been manufactured by the assessee within the meaning of the tariff provision.
Ratio Decidendi: Mere assembly, testing and labelling of goods received in disassembled form does not constitute manufacture unless the process results in a new and distinct product having a commercially different identity.