Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
The appellant undertook several activities on bought-out items, raising the issue of whether these processes amounted to manufacture liable for excise duty. For certain finished products like "EOLIA SHOWER ONLY TRIM", the activities performed transformed individual parts into a complete product with a distinct identity, end-use, and nomenclature, amounting to manufacture u/s 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Regarding items like "BOTTLE TRAP" and "FLOOR DRAIN", the appellant claimed the Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD) process merely changed color and made products rust-free, not constituting manufacture. However, applying the Supreme Court's ratio in UNION OF INDIA VERSUS JG. GLASS INDUSTRIES LTD., the PVD process was found essential for product usability by preventing corrosion, qualifying as manufacture incidental to finished goods production u/s 2(f). Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed and partly dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal.
The appellant undertook several activities on bought-out items, raising the issue of whether these processes amounted to manufacture liable for excise duty. For certain finished products like "EOLIA SHOWER ONLY TRIM", the activities performed transformed individual parts into a complete product with a distinct identity, end-use, and nomenclature, amounting to manufacture u/s 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Regarding items like "BOTTLE TRAP" and "FLOOR DRAIN", the appellant claimed the Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD) process merely changed color and made products rust-free, not constituting manufacture. However, applying the Supreme Court's ratio in UNION OF INDIA VERSUS JG. GLASS INDUSTRIES LTD., the PVD process was found essential for product usability by preventing corrosion, qualifying as manufacture incidental to finished goods production u/s 2(f). Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed and partly dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
