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 cutting timber logs into sawn timber amounts to manufacture for the purpose of central excise, and whether the respondents should consider the petitioner's claim in the light of the Supreme Court's ruling on the point.
Analysis: The Court noted that the Supreme Court had held that manufacture requires a transformation resulting in a new and different article having a distinct name, character or use, and that every change does not amount to manufacture. On that basis, the Supreme Court had ruled that sawn timber was entitled to exemption and that Tariff Item 68 was not attracted. Since the petitioner had already submitted its representation, the matter was left to the respondents to act in accordance with that binding pronouncement.
Conclusion: The petitioner's claim was not finally adjudicated in the writ petition, but the respondents were directed to decide it in the light of the Supreme Court's ruling.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of by requiring the excise authorities to proceed consistently with the Supreme Court's view on manufacture and exemption for sawn timber.
Ratio Decidendi: Manufacture under excise law arises only when processing brings about a new and different article with a distinct name, character or use; a mere change is insufficient.