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 crushing old rubber into crumb rubber powder amounts to manufacture and whether the resultant product is classifiable and dutiable as a new excisable commodity.
Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the process of cutting, sieving, crushing and converting old rubber into powder brought about a transformation resulting in a new commodity with distinct commercial or chemical identity. The earlier binding decisions in the assessee's own case had already held that the powdered product was obtained by a mere process of crushing and that no new product emerged. The reasoning also applied the principle that a mere change in physical form, without a chemical change or emergence of a commercially different product, does not constitute manufacture. The burden remained on the Revenue to establish manufacture, and tariff classification by itself could not displace that burden.
Conclusion: Crushing old rubber into crumb rubber powder does not amount to manufacture, and the Revenue's challenge to the Commissioner (Appeals)' order fails.
Ratio Decidendi: A process that only alters the physical form of rubber without producing a commercially or chemically distinct product does not amount to manufacture, and duty cannot be sustained unless the Revenue proves that manufacture has occurred.