Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1999 (4) TMI 384

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....athak, Advocate, for the Respondents. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - M/s. Metal Prints received from M/s. Collapsible Tubes Corporation aluminium collapsible tubes manufactured by the latter. It subjected these tubes to washing and cleaning and unspecified processes of quality control and screwed as to the necks of each of the tubes a plastic cap. The tubes with the caps were sen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t would be evident that the screwing of plastic caps on to aluminium tubes by M/s. Metal Prints did not by itself amount to manufacture. The cap was not manufactured by either of the two companies. The screwing is a simple physical process and does not involve a change in either of the two products. In U.O.I. v. Metal Box India Ltd. - 1996 (87) E.L.T. 327, the Supreme Court held that the question ....