Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AAR Central Excise - 2011 (9) TMI AAR This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (9) TMI 92 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, NEW DELHIClassification of battery bank - Refund of SAD u/s 3(5) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - It is the contention of the applicant that the manner of clearance of battery cells as aforesaid does not bring into existence any new manufactured product and hence it is not liable to pay any excise duty in respect of the processing undertaken by it - whether the battery bank that is supplied by the applicant has a name, character and use which is distinct from the batteries that comprise it - Held that:- the function and use of the batteries whether in single units or in a bank of multiple batteries remains the same and that is to supply power as per requirement - cycle of operation, charging and discharging, can be repeated for the life of the accumulator. This process of charging cannot be said to result in the manufacture of an accumulator Regarding HSN note - It is true, as contended by the DR, that it is not necessary that tariff classification must change for a process to qualify as manufacture - in the present case there is no transformation that brings about a fundamental change in the character and use of the goods. The name remains the same (i.e. accumulator, although an assembly of batteries is called a battery bank), the character and usage remain the same (i.e. provide direct current to an appliance though of differing magnitude etc.) - activities performed at the Chennai facility of the applicant in respect of imported battery cells as described in para 4 cannot be said to amount to "manufacture" under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944
|