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 roughening aluminium sheets on one side amounts to manufacture and whether the product could claim exemption as aluminium shapes and sections.
Analysis: The process left the aluminium sheets with their essential character intact and did not bring into existence a new and distinct article. The roughened sheets were only an intermediate product requiring further sensitising, coating, exposure and development before they could be used as lithographic plates. The evidence from the chemical report, expert opinions and trade enquiries showed that roughened aluminium sheets and lithographic plates were commercially and functionally distinct. As the product was neither a lithographic plate at the stage of clearance nor a shapes and sections product within the notification, the exemption claim failed. Applying the settled test under section 2(f), mere processing which does not result in a commercially new product does not amount to manufacture.
Conclusion: Roughening of aluminium sheets on one side did not amount to manufacture, and the exemption was not available.
Ratio Decidendi: A process amounts to manufacture only when it results in a new and distinct commercial product with a different name, character or use; mere mechanical roughening that leaves the original goods substantially unchanged is not manufacture.