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 the processes carried out by the raw material supplier and the job worker resulted in fully manufactured goods at the job worker's end, and whether the goods returned by the job worker were liable to duty as such.
Analysis: The Court accepted the Tribunal's factual assessment that the manufacturing sequence was completed only after the goods were subjected to de-flashing, testing for hardness and thickness, and inspection by the raw material supplier. The Tribunal had also found that the job worker performed only part of the processing and received job charges, while the final steps necessary to make the goods marketable were undertaken by the primary manufacturer. Relying on the statutory definition of manufacture and the principle that processes incidental or ancillary to production fall within manufacture, the Court held that the Tribunal had correctly treated the activity as a manufacturing process under the relevant job-work provisions.
Conclusion: The goods were not fully manufactured at the job worker's premises, the Tribunal's view was correct, and no substantial question of law arose for consideration.