Just a moment...
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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 undertaken on the colour solution for manufacture of nail enamel amounted to manufacture under section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and whether the appellant was entitled to area based exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003.
Analysis: The disputed goods were subjected to testing, homogenisation, mixing with thixo lacquer, adjustment of viscosity, filling in small retail bottles and labelling with retail sale price. These processes went beyond the peripheral activities mentioned in paragraph 4 of the exemption notification. A conjoint reading of section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Chapter Note 5 of Chapter 33 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 shows that adoption of any other treatment to render the product marketable to the consumer amounts to manufacture. The material on record showed that the colour solution in bulk drums did not become nail enamel until it was so treated and put up in the prescribed retail form, with a new marketable product emerging thereafter.
Conclusion: The processes amounted to manufacture and the appellant was entitled to the area based exemption.