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 bevelling, edge polishing, sand blasting and acid frosting carried out on duty-paid mirrors and glass amounts to manufacture.
Analysis: The processes were held not to amount to manufacture in relation to mirrors because the processed article continued to remain a mirror, retained the same identity and use, and was not known by a different commercial name. As to glass, it was found that where the processed product became known as worked glass and fell under a different tariff heading, the factual position differed; however, on the facts of the appeal, the Revenue had not established that the impugned processes brought into existence a new commodity so as to satisfy the settled test of manufacture. The governing principle applied was that manufacture arises only when a distinct commercial commodity, with a separate name, character and use, comes into existence, and the original commodity ceases to exist in its earlier form.
Conclusion: The impugned processes did not amount to manufacture in the facts of the appeal, and the Revenue's challenge failed.
Final Conclusion: The demand of duty could not be sustained on the footing that the processes undertaken resulted in manufacture.
Ratio Decidendi: A process amounts to manufacture only if it brings into existence a distinct commercial commodity with a different name, character and use, and the original commodity no longer retains its earlier identity.