Glass processing and manufacture: bevelling, polishing and frosting of duty-paid glass and mirror were held not to be manufacture.

Bevelling, edge polishing, sand blasting, acid frosting and colouring of duty-paid glass and mirror were held not to amount to manufacture. The Tribunal followed its earlier orders in the same assessee's case and found that, once no manufacture was involved, the duty demand could not stand because it depended entirely on the assumption of manufacture. Confiscation and penalties were also set aside as consequential reliefs flowing from the same alleged liability. The argument that the inputs required further verification was rejected because the notice and order did not allege receipt of non-duty-paid plain glass and mirror for the disputed processes.

---

---

Issues: Whether bevelling, edge polishing, sand blasting, acid frosting and colouring of duty-paid glass and mirror amounted to manufacture, and whether the duty demand, confiscation and penalties could be sustained.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed its earlier orders in the same assessee's case holding that the stated processes carried out on duty-paid glass and mirror do not amount to manufacture. Since the impugned demand and allied consequences rested on the assumption that manufacture had taken place, the finding that no manufacture was involved removed the basis for the duty demand. The same reasoning also applied to confiscation and penalties, as those reliefs were consequential to the alleged liability. The argument that the nature of the inputs required further verification was rejected because the notice and order did not allege receipt of non-duty-paid plain glass and mirror for the relevant processes.

Conclusion: The processes did not amount to manufacture. The duty demand, confiscation and penalties were not sustainable and were set aside in favour of the assessee.

---