Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding

🚨 Important Update for Our Users

We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.

⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025

If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know via our feedback form so we can address them promptly.

  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + Commissioner Central Excise - 1981 (8) TMI Commissioner This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password



 

1981 (8) TMI 218 - Commissioner - Central Excise

Issues:
Exemption under Notification 176/77-CE for value exceeding Rs. 30 lakhs, whether rubberlining constitutes "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The appellants had two units involved in manufacturing rubber products and rubberlining vessels. They sought exemption under Notification 176/77-CE, which was rejected due to the value of goods exceeding Rs. 30 lakhs. The appeal raised concerns about the treatment of tanks/vessels brought by customers for rubberlining and the duty on rubber sheets applied. The main issue was whether rubberlining constituted "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Act.

The appellants argued that rubberlining was not manufacturing as they received fully manufactured vessels for periodic rubberlining, merely recovering job charges. They referenced a clarification stating re-coating old rollers does not amount to manufacture. Legal precedents were cited to support the contention that certain processes do not constitute manufacturing, such as applying liquid gold to bangles or repairing existing articles.

During the personal hearing, additional arguments were presented, including an affidavit and a letter from the Collector of Central Excise. The categorization of tanks/vessels received for rubberlining was outlined, distinguishing between those from manufacturers, users, and old tanks. The judgment analyzed each category separately to determine the manufacturing status based on the original duty payment and the change in the taxable description of the goods after rubberlining.

The judgment concluded that for tanks/vessels received from manufacturers, rubberlining was considered manufacturing as it led to a new taxable product. However, for tanks/vessels received from users or old tanks, where the original duty was paid, rubberlining did not alter the taxable description, hence not constituting manufacturing. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, clarifying the duty implications based on the manufacturing status of rubberlining in different scenarios.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates