TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resultant product is having a distinct name, character and use is commercially known differently than the raw material. In other words if by application of labour and skill, the object is transformed to the extent that it is commercially known differently, with the persons who deal with it, it has to be held that manufacture has taken place. Also, Revenue has not advanced any arguments to show that the resultant product i.e. Velcro is not known differently in the market than the running length tapes imported by the respondents. There are no reasons to take a view different than the one taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Customs Appeal No.70423 of 2016 - FINAL ORDER NO. 71710/2019 - Da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tivity under taken by the appellant amounts to manufacture, no Anti Dumping Duty is attracted. 3. It is the Revenue case that the process of slitting and cutting does not amount to manufacture and as such no the manufacturing activity was under taken by the importer in which the case, they are liable to pay Anti Dumping Duty. On going through the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals), we find that he has observed as under:- I find it has been elaborated by the appellant as to how these goods were manufactured by them and what process was undertaken by them. It is observed in the order-in-original that it is not clear as to from where the samples were drawn. Samples have been produced before me too. I find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the pictures, as to how and what process is carried out on the raw material and how a new and final product emerges out of the claimed process. The appellant has submitted sample of the final product, claimed to have been manufactured by them, as against the same the department has not submitted any sample to counter their claim. As observed above and in various judgments by Hon ble Apex Court that the standard of proof in such proceedings is preponderance of probabilities . For either side, to prove their stance, they have to submit and rely upon evidence/probabilities to bolster their stand. When both the sides present the evidence/probabilities in support of their views, the same are to be evaluated with regard to their prepondera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C Vol. VII 325, 1968 STC Vol. 21 page 17, 1972 STC Vol. 30 page 489, 1982 (10) E.L.T. 25, 1972 STC Vol. 30 page 57, 1980 (6) E.L.T. 343 and 1981 (1) SCC 653 referred to 1979 (4) E.L.T. (J 380), 1980 (6) E.L.T. 164 distinguished, 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1736 approved. As explained by the appellant, they have carried out the process of making Velcro out of tapes imported by them. They have explained that the goods cleared by them through DTA bills of entry were different in character and use. Further, it has been observed in the order in original at page 14, para 16 (iii) that the description of the goods and its classification given on DTA bills of entry are same as declared in relevant import bills of entry whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
