Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (2.48 seconds)B.P.L. India Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Cochin on 7 May, 2002
Similarly, in the case of B. P. L. India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin, it has been held that assembly of imported kits amounts to manufacturing.
Empire Industries Limited & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 6 May, 1985
Further, in the case of
Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, it has been held as follow:-
Narne Tulaman Manufactures Pvt. Ltd. ... vs Collector Of Central Excise, Hyderabad on 15 September, 1988
In the case of Narne Tulaman Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad, it has been held that even though a party may manufacture only one part of the machine and import or get manufactured the other parts, then fit and assemble the parts into a complete machine, the process would amount to manufacture.
Section 3 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 25 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Rattan Exports Ltd., Delhi vs Collector Of Customs, Calcutta on 11 August, 1987
12. Thus, it is clear that ultrasound scanners have been manufactured. The further submission is that manufacture in the ordinary sense is not enough but that there must be "substantial manufacture". It is submitted that the term "substantial manufacture" necessarily implies that not only the final product but a substantial amount of its components must also be manufactured by the party. We are unable to read any such requirement into the words "substantial manufacture". The words "substantial manufacture" appear to indicate that there need not necessarily be manufacture, but that any activity, including activities like assembling, which result in a new product, which is commercially a different product from what is imported, would be sufficient. The words "substantial manufacturing" do not indicate in any manner that a substantial amount of the components must also be manufactured. If that were required the policy would have said so. Of course, as set out in the case of M/s. Rattan Exports Ltd. Delhi v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta, JT 1987 (3) 271 mere fixing of a part or two on a fully assembled product would not be considered to be manufacture. But that is not the case here. Therefore, the finding that manufacturing activity had not been undertaken cannot be sustained.
1