Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (9) TMI 1015 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (9) TMI 1015 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - Manufacture - whether the appellant-assessee is the ‘manufacturer’ of PET bottle - appellant-assessee procures pre-forms required to manufacture of PET bottles and supply the same to job worker who converts the pre-forms into PET bottles and there upon fills the same with fruit pulp which is an exempted product - Held that:- the appellant-assessee cannot be considered as a ‘manufacturer’ of PET bottle for the simple reason that they have not undertake .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. - Notification No. 10/96-CE dated 23.07.1996 - captive consumption - eligibility for exemption - Held that:- it is found that the fruit pulp cannot be marketed without being packed in the bottle. The packed fruit pulp is the product subjected to excise levy. In the manufacture of such packed fruit pulp, PET bottle is apparently consumed. By applying to the ratio of decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mihijam Vanaspati Limited vs. CCE, Jamshedpur [2001 (1) TMI 152 - CEGAT, KOLKATA]and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sh Chandra, President and Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Ms. Neha Garg, DR for the appellant -Revenue Sh. Shameem Ahmed, Advocate, DR for the Respondent -assessee ORDER There are two appeals, one by the appellant -assessee and another by Revenue. Since the issue involved is same in both the appeals they are taken up together for disposal. The appellant -assessee s appeal is directed against order dated 28.01.2009 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal. The brief facts of the case are .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fter a due process, the original authority confirmed a demand of ₹ 61,22,732/- for the period January, 2004 to July, 2007. 2. We have heard the ld. Counsel for the appellant-assessee and ld. DR for the Revenue and perused appeal records. The admitted facts of the case are that the appellant-assessee were using the services of job worker for manufacture of fruit pulp in PET bottles. The appellant-assessee procures pre-forms required to manufacture of PET bottles and supply the same to the j .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lying the definition in terms of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. First of all, the definition discussed by the original authority is not available during the impugned period. Irrespective of this fact we note that the appellant-assessee cannot be considered as a manufacturer of PET bottle for the simple reason that they have not undertaken any such process. In other words, if they supply pre-form to the job worker to be converted into PET bottles and for the further use in packing the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e Supreme Court observed that the question whether the produces or the manufacturer is or is not the owner of the goods is not determinative of the tax liability. In CCE, Goa vs. Cosme Farma Laboratories - 2015 (318) ELT 545 (SC) the Hon ble Supreme Court held that when the manufacturing activity was done only by the job workers in their premises and with the help of their labour force and machinery, following the quality control or specification of the principal manufacturer does not make the s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g the activity. We note that there are various other decisions, following the same ratio, by the Tribunal. We find that on this ground alone the demand against the appellant-assessee will fail. 3. Further, we also note that the alternate plea of the appellant regarding eligibility of exemption for such PET bottles in terms of Notification No. 10/96-CE dated 23.07.1996 is also on the sound footing. The original authority rejected the claim for exemption on the ground that the said PET bottles are .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version