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 compressing hydrogen gas received through a pipeline into cylinders and affixing the appellant's trademark amounted to manufacture so as to attract central excise duty under the tariff notes.
Analysis: The activity was examined in the light of the relevant tariff notes and the definition of manufacture. The controlling question was whether the process undertaken by the appellant rendered the gas marketable to the consumer within the meaning of Chapter Note 9 to Chapter 28 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The reasoning adopted in earlier decisions of the Tribunal was followed, including the view that the expression "consumer" in the tariff note does not extend to an industrial user or manufacturer purchasing the goods for further industrial use. The gas was already marketable in its original form, and the process of compressing it into cylinders did not create a new product or make a non-marketable product marketable.
Conclusion: The activity did not amount to manufacture and no central excise duty was payable on that basis.
Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are already marketable and are supplied to industrial users, mere compression and filling into cylinders does not constitute manufacture under the tariff note merely because it renders the goods suitable for such industrial use.