Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 40 (1.93 seconds)Hardev Singh vs Indore on 23 July, 2018
10. The another peculiar fact of the present case which distinguishes it
from the case law as relied upon by the Department is that the final product
here is a transmission tower, which is to be removed from the premises of
L & T in CKD condition only i.e. all such parts as processed by the appellants
herein shall be cleared from L & T premises in unassembled form, though
together, to be finally assembled at the site of the client in the form of a
transmission tower. Thus, it become clear that the processes undertaken by
the appellants on the raw-material provided to them by L & T in L & T‟s own
premises are nothing but the processes to convert the said raw-material into
a customized part of the whole transmission tower and as such, to our
opinion, the activity of the appellants is incidental/ ancillary to the
completion of the manufactured product and thus, falls under Section 2 f (i)
of Central Excise Act, 1944. Brakes India Ltd. case (supra) is again relied
14
upon. At this stage clause 5 of Section 65(19) of Finance Act, 1994 defining
BAS is perused. It is clear that it includes the activity which is production or
processing of the goods for or on behalf of the client but does not include
any activity that amounts to manufacture of excisable goods.
Delhi 2 vs Ashoka Paper Products on 7 August, 2019
In Brakes India Ltd. v. Superintendent of Central Excise -
(1997) 10 SCC 717, the commodity in question was brake lining
blanks. It was held on facts that such blanks could not be used as
brake linings by themselves without the processes of drilling,
trimming and chamfering. It was in this situation that the test laid
down was that if by adopting a particular process a transformation
takes place which makes the product have a character and use of
its own which it did not bear earlier, then such process would
5
E/51120/2018
amount to manufacture irrespective of whether there was a single
process or several processes."
M/S.Mamta Surgical Cotton Industries vs Asstt. Commnr.(Anti-Evasion), ... on 23 January, 2014
27. This Court in Crane Betel Nut Powder Works case (supra) citing the
earlier decision in Brakes India Ltd. v. Supdt. of Central Excise, (1997)
10 SCC 717 wherein the process of drilling, trimming and chamfering was
said to amount to "manufacture", has reiterated that if by a process, a
change is effected in a product and new characteristic is introduced which
facilitates the utility of the new product for which it is meant, then the
process is not a simple process, but a process incidental or ancillary to
the completion of a manufactured product.
M/S. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, New Delhi on 12 March, 2015
One such decision, namely, Brakes India
Limited v. Superintendent of Central Excise and others [1997
(10) SCC 717] dealt with brake lining blanks. It was found
on facts that these brake lining blanks purchased by the
C.A. NO. 8190 OF 2003 12
appellant could not be used as brake linings by themselves
without the process of drilling, trimming and chamfering.
M/S. Servo-Med Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, Mumbai on 7 May, 2015
The fact that medically speaking
they are only used after sterilization would not bring this case
within the ratio of the Brakes India case. All articles used
medically in, let us say, surgical operations, must of necessity
first be sterilized.
Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd. vs Cce [Alongwith Appeal No. E/2691/91 ... on 18 November, 2005
(c) The decision of the Supreme Court in Brakes India Ltd. v. Superintendent of Central Excise , was cited to point out that the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Madras High Court holding that brake lining blanks purchased by the appellant, when put to process of drilling, trimming and chamfering can be said to be manufactured within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the said Act.
Mineral Oil Corporation vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 25 June, 1999
In Brakes India case, supra, also the Supreme Court considered the 'Character or use' before holding the process of drilling, trimming & Chamfering of brake lining blanks as the process amounting to manufacture. The Supreme Court referred to the observation of the High Court that sometime it may suit the manufacturer to retain and stamp the same name to the end products also. Such is not the case in the present matter as used transformer oil remains to be transformer oil after the process undertaken by the appellants. In these circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
Seth Liladhar Biyani And Sons vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 12 October, 2000
In Brakes India case brake lining blanks could not be used for motor vehicles without holes and trimming and chamferring. We, therefore, hold that the process undertaken by the Appellant does not amount to manufacture. We thus allow the appeal without going into the other submissions made on behalf of the Appellant.
Rajpurohit Gmp India Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 13 June, 2003
The learned Departmental Representative also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Brakes India Ltd. v. Superintendent of Central Excise - 1998 (101) E.L.T. 241 wherein it has been held that drilling, trimming and chamfering of brake lining flanks - purchased from market - amounted to manufacture as without such a process brake lining cannot be used by automobile manufacturers. By adopting a particular process if transformation takes place, which makes the product have a different character and use of its own which did not bear earlier then the process would amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Act. In fact the learned DR adopted the words contained in the head note of the case.