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 the benefit of Notification No. 63/95-C.E. was available to explosives blended at the mine site from separately transported ingredients, and whether Note 2 to Section VI of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff denied the exemption on the footing that manufacture had taken place in the factory.
Analysis: The goods were transported separately to the mine site and mixed there in a mobile van specifically designed for preparation of bulk explosives. The bulk explosive came into existence only after the ingredients were mixed at the mine site, so the process of manufacture was carried out at the mines and not in the factory. Note 2 to Section VI is a classification provision for goods put up in sets of separate constituents intended to be mixed together, and it does not itself deem the carrying of materials separately to be manufacture in the factory. In the absence of a specific deeming provision treating the process as manufacture at the factory stage, the exemption could not be denied merely because the ingredients were transported separately and mixed at the mine site.
Conclusion: The exemption under Notification No. 63/95-C.E. was available to the assessee, and Note 2 to Section VI of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff did not defeat that entitlement.