TaxTMI 
2026 (11) TMI 365
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....June 2017. The Show Cause Notice was issued by invoking the extended period provisions demanding Rs.14,21,647/-. The Appellants submitted their detailed reply contending that the fixing up of lenses in the frames would not amount to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. After due process, the lower authorities have confirmed the demand. 2. During the hearing conducted on 07.10.2026, both sides have argued and have made their submissions. The Appellants had placed reliance on the Hon'ble Madras High Court's decision in the case of Titan Company Ltd. and Others v. Commissioner of Central Excise LTU, Chennai and Others [W.P. Nos. 37765 of 2016 and 1038 & 1039 of 2017 and WMP Nos.1008 & 1009 of 2017 and 32365 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... tax. The spectacles being not a different commodity would not attract tax on their sales. Particularly, when there is no exemption notification exempting frames and glasses from payment of tax and both the frames and glasses are exigible to tax @ 8%." When Mr.S.K.Jain, Learned counsel for the appellant, proceeded to argue, we drew his attention to paragraph 5 of the judgment of Court under appeal, which is quoted in the ground above [...] Mr.Jain persisted in arguing that frames and glasses were not exempted from payment of tax. We pointed out to him that it was impermissible for him to so argue when the High Court had specifically recorded that "it is not in dispute" that frames and glasses were exempted from payment of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... business, a customer comes to him with a prescription from a doctor, selects a particular frame, settles the price thereof and the frame is then appropriated to the contract of sale within the meaning of explanation 2(a) to Section 2(g) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The petitioner then fixes the glasses, according to prescription, to the frame which has already become the chattel of the customer. There are thus two distinct sales-one of frame and the other of the glasses and it is the case of the petitioner that he does not charge anything for fitting. It is alleged that the Commercial Tax Officer, Alipore, who examined the petitioner's books of account, records and documents under Section 14(1) of the Act, completely misund....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Court, the petitioners would specifically confirm that manufacture of the power lens i.e., the conversion of lens blanks into prescription lens is a taxable activity and that such activity takes place in the workplace/factory. They also confirm that the frames used are either imported or manufactured indigenously in a factory, subject to central excise duty. These two activities i.e. manufacture of the spectacle frames and prescription lenses are, admittedly excisable events and the petitioners are liable to remit duty in regard to the aforesaid two events, where applicable. The petitioners also engage in sale of ready-made eye-wear that is purchased by customers, off-the-shelf. I am not, in these writ petitions, concerned with eith....