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>Court rules backing aluminum foil with paper not manufacturing. Petitioner wins duty refund case.</h1> <h3>PARLE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a registered Company, in a case concerning the liability to pay duty under Tariff Item No. 27(c) for backing ... Manufacture - Backing of aluminium foil with printed paper Issues Involved: Determination of liability to pay duty under Tariff Item No. 27(c) for the process of backing duty paid aluminium foils and entitlement to refund of duty paid under mistake.Summary:1. The petitioner, a registered Company, purchased duty paid aluminium foils for packing biscuits and sweets, which were backed with plain or printed paper. The Company paid duty under Tariff Item No. 27(c) from February 1980 to February 1983, but later claimed it was a mistake to pay duty on the aluminium foils backed with paper as duty had already been paid on the foil itself. 2. The Company filed refund claims for various periods, contending that the process of backing the foils does not amount to manufacture and therefore, duty should not be levied. The Company approached the court seeking to restrain the authorities from collecting duty on paper-backed aluminium foils and claiming a refund for the duty paid.3. The Court analyzed the legal provisions and past judgments cited by both parties. The Company argued that excise duty should not be collected twice on the same excisable goods under the same entry, relying on relevant case laws. The Department contended that duty collection on such goods was permissible, citing a different case law. However, the Court found that the process of backing aluminium foil with paper did not amount to manufacture, as no distinct article emerged from the process.4. After examining the process undertaken by the Company and the lack of challenge from the Department, the Court concluded that the process of backing aluminium foil was not manufacturing. Therefore, it was erroneous for the Department to recover duty from the Company. The Court ruled in favor of the Company, quashing the show cause notice and directing the refund of duty paid under mistake for the specified period.5. The Court made the rule absolute, quashed the show cause notice, and ordered the refund of duty paid under mistake. The respondents were directed to verify the refund amount and make the payment within a specified timeline. No costs were awarded, and the bank guarantees and bonds furnished earlier were to be canceled.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
