Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. In the matter of Union of India vs. Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1994 (74) ELT 492 (SC) while dealing with the question whether the process involved aluminium foil into paper backed aluminium foil amount to manufacture of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act.

4. On the question whether the respondents filed a counter-affidavit or not, there is some controversy. Respondents say that a counter was in fact filed in the High Court on 13th August, 1987.

Be that as it may, the matter of this nature does not stand concluded by a mere non-traverse. The question whether the process involved in converting the aluminium-foil into paper-backed aluminium-foil amounts to manufacture within the meaning of S.2(f) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, or not, turns upon whether as a result of the application of the process a new and commercially distinct article, known to the market as such, emerges at the end. This, in turn, depends upon the evidence as to the requisite transportation of the goods into a new and different article having distinct identity and character or use. Unless this occurs, the process, however elaborate it might otherwise be, would not graduate itself into manufacture, The article that results from applying the process must be commercial known as another and different article.