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 the process of reshelling rollers used in sugar mills amounts to manufacture under the Central Excise Act, and whether the departmental appeal could succeed in the face of the Board circular and the absence of material showing commercial marketability of the shell.
Analysis: The activity was held not to amount to manufacture because the adjudicating authority had followed the Board circular, and departmental authorities could not take a contrary stand without first superseding that circular. The reasoning also relied on the view that the shell was only an intermediate product, not separately ordered or sold as a marketable commodity, and that no material had been produced to establish commercial marketability. The decision further noted the relevance of exemption under Notification No. 275/88-C.E. and the Board circular dated 1-7-1996.
Conclusion: The process of reshelling rollers did not amount to manufacture, and the departmental appeal was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was sustained and the assessee's position was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a binding Board circular supports the assessee's treatment of the activity, and the alleged product is only an intermediate, non-marketable item, the process does not constitute manufacture for excise purposes.