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 the respondents were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 119/75-CE when customer-supplied components were assembled and processed into toothbrushes, and whether such activity could be treated as job work for levy of duty only on labour charges.
Analysis: The Tribunal applied the principle earlier stated in its larger bench decision that the manufacturing process must be incidental or ancillary to the completion of the article entrusted by the customer, and that the article must retain its essential identity after processing. On the facts, the respondents did not merely carry out incidental processing on supplied goods; instead, the supplied parts were used in the manufacture of a distinct final product, namely toothbrushes. The goods received from customers were not returned after processing in their original identity, and the emergence of a new commodity took the case outside the scope of the notification.
Conclusion: The respondents were not entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 119/75-CE, and the Revenue's appeals succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: Notification-based job-work relief applies only where the customer-supplied article undergoes incidental or ancillary processing and retains its essential identity; manufacture of a new product out of the supplied materials is outside the concession.