Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 blending wool tops with synthetic fibre supplied by customers resulted in manufacture of a new excisable product, and whether the resulting blended tops were classifiable and dutiable.
Analysis: The record showed that the blended tops were only an intermediate stage and required further processing before a marketable end-product, namely blended yarn, could emerge. The evidence accepted at the original stage indicated that the product was not ordinarily traded in the form in which it emerged from the appellants' process. The department did not adduce contrary evidence to show that the process produced a complete commercial commodity with a distinct market identity. In these circumstances, the process of blending was not treated as bringing into existence a new product liable to excise duty.
Conclusion: The process did not amount to manufacture of a new excisable product, and the demand could not be sustained; the classification dispute therefore did not survive.
Final Conclusion: The assessee's appeal succeeded and the Revenue's appeal failed, with the blended tops held not to be exigible as a separate manufactured commodity on the facts proved.
Ratio Decidendi: An intermediate product is not dutiable unless the process results in a new commercially identifiable and marketable commodity emerging from manufacture.