Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + SC Central Excise - 2004 (11) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (11) TMI 107 - SC - Central ExciseWhether the activities in question involved manufacturing process? Held that:- since the goods were received from the depots and not directly received from one factory, therefore, any duty (paying documents) were not available. It is to be noted that once the Jumbo rolls are cut into smaller sizes, they completely lost their earlier identity and cannot be used for the same purpose as was done before cutting. In a hypothetical case, even if the smaller sized ribbons are stitched together or fixed together in any manner, there is no possibility of its use as Jumbo rolls. The factual findings recorded that the processing resulted in coming into existence of a commercial product having distinct name, character, and use are on terra-firma. No case is made out for interference with the factual findings. In view of the factual position as noted by the Collector and affirmed by the CEGAT there is no substance in the plea that the extended period of limitation was not applicable. It is noted in the Collector's order with reference to the price lists, and some gate-passes seized from the Make up depot, that the assessee was manufacturing identical goods in their Thane unit apart from other varieties. Additionally, with reference to sales invoices it was noted that the price quoted is inclusive of excise duty, though no excise duty was paid in respect of the goods which according to Revenue was manufactured at Madras. As noted above, looked from any angle order of the Collector as affirmed on the point involved by CEGAT does not warrant any interference being based factual conclusions which cannot be termed as perverse. The conclusions are based on relevant materials.
|