New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
CGST - Acts + GST Rates GST Ntf. GST Forms GST - Manual GST - FAQ State GST Acts SGST Ntf. I. Tax Manual
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s R.D. Plast Shri Ripudaman Singh Partner Shri Anirudh Joshi Versus CCE Delhi

Manufacturing activity or not - emergence of new marketable product or not - Whether the main appellant is liable to Central Excise duty on the aluminium channels, brought from market on which they have carried out process like cutting, drilling and bending as per the requirement of the customers, will amount to manufacture or not - Held that: - Such drilling and bending is also carried out at site of the customers depending upon the requirement of structure to be installed in the premises along .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o arrive at the SSI exemption, the impugned orders held that the suppliers did not have manufacturing facility and the purchase and sale transaction of the wall mounted brackets is not acceptable - In this connection, the appellant contested that simply because the suppliers from whom they procured these materials do not themselves have manufacturing facility by itself cannot lead to a conclusion that the whole transaction is bogus - Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Excise Appeal Nos. 12-13 an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

der dated 30/09/2009 of Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication), New Delhi. Two appeals are by M/s R.D. Plast and Shri R. Daman Singh, Partner of M/s R.D. Plast against demand of Central Excise duty and imposition of equal penalty and imposition of personal penalty respectively. The third appeal is by Shri Anirudh Joshi, Proprietor of M/s Balaji Exports against imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Since all these appeals are against the same order, they are ta .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ss carried out by the main appellant on the aluminium channels procured from outside and thereafter supplied to various customers will amount to manufacture, attracting Central Excise levy ; (b) the turnover of wall mounted brackets were not properly recorded in the records of the main appellant as a portion of sale is attributed to trading of items purchased as such. The third appellant is one of the two companies from whom the wall mounted brackets were purported to have been purchased and sup .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

handra, Proprietors of M/s Balaji Exports and M/s Apra International respectively under Rule 26 (1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3. We have heard both the sides and perused appeal records. The first issue is regarding the question whether the main appellant is liable to Central Excise duty on the aluminium channels, brought from market on which they have carried out process like cutting, drilling and bending as per the requirement of the customers, will amount to manufacture or not. The allega .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uminium channels, which are of general nature were prepared for particular structure by the process of cutting, drilling and bending in the unit of the main appellant. The Original Authority concluded that the aluminium sections so prepared for use in the structures are not same goods as aluminium sections brought in from the market by the main appellant. It was concluded that the processes undertaken by the main appellant have resulted in bringing in a new and different article having distinct, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

te of the customers depending upon the requirement of structure to be installed in the premises alongwith other civil work. In such situation, it is necessary to have a clear recording on the facts as to what type of new identifiable product emerges from aluminium sections brought in by the main appellant. The Original Authority found the product cleared by the appellant to be classified under heading 7610 as aluminium structures. He held that the aluminium sections have been prepared for use in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

icated and before their permanent fixing will be liable to excise duty. In the present case, there is no clear finding regarding what type of structures as parts of such structures are emerging with categorical evidence. In such a situation we are unable to agree with the findings of the Original Authority that a new and different article having distinct name, character or use as emerged in the present case. As such, we find that the findings of this by the Original Authority cannot be sustained .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

turing facility and the purchase and sale transaction of the wall mounted brackets is not acceptable. It was held that the whole of sales turnover is on account of manufacture only. In this connection, the appellant contested that simply because the suppliers from whom they procured these materials do not themselves have manufacturing facility by itself cannot lead to a conclusion that the whole transaction is bogus. The appellant never claimed that these were manufactured by the suppliers. They .....

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