TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether slit, pleated and cut impregnated filter paper packs constituted "manufacture" resulting in a new article liable to duty as articles of paper under the tariff. (ii) Whether the goods were classifiable as articles of paper under sub-heading 4818.90 or as other paper cut to size or shape under sub-heading 4817.90, and whether duty and penalty were sustainable.
Issue (i): Whether slit, pleated and cut impregnated filter paper packs constituted "manufacture" resulting in a new article liable to duty as articles of paper under the tariff.
Analysis: The decisive test was whether the processes produced a new and distinct commodity known in commerce by a different name, character and use. The impregnated filter paper remained filter paper after slitting, pleating and cutting; the processes merely altered its physical form to increase surface area and facilitate use in filtration. The evidence showed that the operations were understood in paper technology as conversion processes, and the end-use remained filtration. No new commercial commodity emerged.
Conclusion: The processes did not amount to manufacture and the resultant pleated packs were not a new excisable article.
Issue (ii): Whether the goods were classifiable as articles of paper under sub-heading 4818.90 or as other paper cut to size or shape under sub-heading 4817.90, and whether duty and penalty were sustainable.
Analysis: Since the goods remained converted paper and not articles of paper, classification under heading 48.18 was not justified. The tariff entry relating to paper cut to size or shape was more appropriate, and the exemption position also supported the assessee because the end-product was still identifiable as converted paper made from base paper. In the absence of manufacture, the duty demand and penalty could not stand.
Conclusion: The goods were not classifiable under sub-heading 4818.90, and the duty demand and penalty were unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the impugned orders were set aside, with consequential relief to the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Processes such as slitting, pleating and cutting do not constitute manufacture unless they bring into existence a new commercial commodity distinct in name, character and use from the original goods.
TaxTMI 
