Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 fabrication of storage tanks from steel sheets supplied by the customer amounted to manufacture attracting central excise duty, and whether the tanks were non-dutiable because they were embedded in the earth and not marketable.
Analysis: The activity carried out in the factory involved converting supplied steel sheets into storage tanks of the required capacity, which resulted in a new /article coming into existence. The duty liability was determined on the basis of manufacture within the factory, and not on the subsequent use or installation of the tanks after clearance. The plea of non-marketability was rejected because the tanks were in fact procured by the customer under the job-work arrangement. The valuation adopted by the department was also supported by the manner in which the fabricated tanks were cleared.
Conclusion: The fabrication activity constituted manufacture and the storage tanks were dutiable; the objections based on embedding in the earth and alleged non-marketability were rejected.
Final Conclusion: The duty demand and the impugned order were sustained, and the appeals failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a process carried out in a factory transforms supplied material into a distinct excisable product, excise duty is attracted on the manufacture itself, irrespective of the product's later installation or end use.