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 printing of plain plastic sheets amounts to manufacture and whether duty recovery could be sustained on the printed sheets or be confined to any unpaid duty on the plain sheets.
Analysis: The dispute turned on the correct character of the goods at two stages, namely plain plastic sheets cleared on duty and thereafter subjected to printing, as opposed to a single finished product treated as printed PVC sheets. The earlier Supreme Court ruling in the assessee's own matter was treated as holding that mere printing does not bring about manufacture and that duty cannot be levied again merely because the same product is printed, if the printing activity is the only subsequent process. At the same time, the factual position as to whether duty had already been discharged on the plain sheets was not clearly established on the record. On that basis, the matter required factual verification before the liability could be finally fixed.
Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the original authority, with recovery, if any, confined only to unpaid duty on plain plastic sheets manufactured before printing.
Ratio Decidendi: Mere printing of plastic sheets, by itself, does not constitute manufacture, and any duty recovery after such printing can extend only to duty that remained unpaid on the goods at the pre-printing stage.