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>CESTAT Bangalore Upholds Commissioner's Decision on Composite Panels as Manufacturing</h1> <h3>Alupro Building Systems Pvt Ltd Versus C.C.E. - Bangalore-II</h3> Alupro Building Systems Pvt Ltd Versus C.C.E. - Bangalore-II - TMI Issues:1. Whether the process of cutting, grooving, and routing of aluminum sheets to make composite panels amounts to manufactureRs.2. Was the refund granted to the appellant erroneously and demandable under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944Rs.3. Is the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka binding on the present caseRs.Analysis:Issue 1:The appeal revolved around whether the process of cutting, grooving, and routing of aluminum sheets to create composite panels constitutes manufacturing. The appellant argued that the process did not alter the product's identity, hence not amounting to manufacture. However, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka determined that the process resulted in a distinct product commercially known as different, thus qualifying as manufacturing. The High Court's decision was binding, and the appeal was dismissed in favor of the Revenue.Issue 2:Regarding the refund granted to the appellant, it was contended that the amount refunded was not duty and could not be termed as an erroneous refund. The appellant also challenged the validity of the show-cause notice. However, the adjudicating authority demanded the refund under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and imposed interest on the amount. The Commissioner(Appeals) upheld this decision, citing the High Court's judgment as the basis for dismissing the appeal.Issue 3:The judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, which held that the process undertaken by the appellant amounted to manufacture, was pivotal in the present case. Despite the appellant challenging this decision and the matter being pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the absence of a stay in favor of the appellant meant that the High Court's decision was binding. Consequently, the Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the order, dismissing the appeal based on the High Court's ruling.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore upheld the decision of the Commissioner(Appeals) based on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, which deemed the process of creating composite panels as manufacturing. The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court's decision was considered binding in the absence of a stay order.
TaxTMI 