TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Marble cutting not 'manufacture' under Central Excise Act. Refund claim allowed post-21-6-1982. Revenue appeal dismissed.</h1> <h3>ASSOCIATED STONE INDUSTRIES (KOTAH) LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX.</h3> The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming that cutting marble blocks into slabs and tiles does not constitute 'manufacture' under the ... Manufacture Issues Involved:1. Whether the process of cutting marble blocks into slabs and tiles amounts to 'manufacture' u/s the Central Excise Act.2. Whether the refund claim for the period December 1981 to June 1982 is time-barred.Summary of Judgment:Issue 1: Manufacture of Marble Slabs and TilesM/s. Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Limited appealed against the Order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. The appellant argued that cutting marble blocks into slabs and tiles does not constitute 'manufacture' as per the Central Excise Act, relying on the Tribunal's earlier decision in Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur v. M/s. Fine Marble and Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Makrana, upheld by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal had previously held that 'The marble slabs that are merely sawn from the marble blocks cannot be called a distinct commodity.' The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, thus applying the Doctrine of Merger, affirming that the process does not result in a new product liable for duty.Issue 2: Refund Claim and LimitationThe appellant's refund claim for the period December 1981 to June 1982 was contested on the grounds of being time-barred. The appellant conceded that there was no protest for this period. However, for the period from June 1982 onwards, the duty was paid under protest, supported by correspondence and the Supreme Court's decision in India Cements Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, which held that a letter indicating non-acceptance of liability suffices as a protest. The Tribunal concluded that the duty was paid under protest from 21-6-1982, allowing the appeal and directing the Revenue authorities to give consequential effect to the Order.Conclusion:The Tribunal ruled that the process of cutting marble blocks into slabs and tiles does not amount to 'manufacture' and allowed the refund claim for the period post 21-6-1982, as the duty was paid under protest. The appeal was allowed, and the Revenue authorities were directed to implement the Order accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
