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>Tribunal: Assembling /= Manufacturing under Chapter 84.71</h1> <h3>M/s. Novo Computer Shopee Prop. Bindu Sen Versus Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals)</h3> M/s. Novo Computer Shopee Prop. Bindu Sen Versus Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) - TMI Issues:1. Whether the activities of the appellant constitute manufacture for excise duty demand.2. Whether the Small Scale Industry (SSI) concession can be denied due to the use of another person's brand name.Analysis:1. The appellant, engaged in trading computer systems under the brand NOVO, faced excise duty demand for allegedly manufacturing computers with another person's brand. The original authority upheld the demand, denying SSI exemption. The appellant appealed, arguing they only traded computer components and assembling them did not constitute manufacture. The Revenue contended that assembly of computer components falls under Chapter 8471, attracting excise duty. The Tribunal, in a recent decision, held that assembling components into a working computer system does not amount to manufacture under Chapter 84.71. The Tribunal emphasized that each component remains classified under 84.71 even when interconnected, concluding that no new distinct goods emerge. The Tribunal also cited precedents supporting this view and set aside the demand, allowing the appeal.2. The second issue pertained to denying SSI benefit due to using another person's brand name. However, as the Tribunal ruled that assembling components into a computer system did not constitute manufacture, the need to discuss the brand name issue or SSI benefit denial became unnecessary. The Tribunal's decision focused on the non-manufacture aspect, leading to the appeal being allowed on that basis. The judgment clarified the distinction between assembling components and creating new goods, emphasizing that the former does not trigger excise duty liability. The decision highlighted relevant chapter notes and precedents to support the finding that the appellant's activities did not amount to manufacture, thereby invalidating the excise duty demand and obviating the need to address the brand name issue or SSI concession denial.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
