Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.22 seconds)M/S. Satnam Overseas Ltd vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, New Delhi on 18 March, 2015
7. Dubbing the aforesaid decision of the Authorities below as
erroneous, it was argued that each WPFS used by the appellant
independently fulfills the function described in Heading 8421. The
appellant only undertakes job work of mounting the imported
WPFS on base frame which can also be undertaken by the
customers at their end. It was pleaded that interconnection done
by the appellant merely facilitates use of filteration system by the
customers, otherwise, WPFS retains the same characteristics as
that of various items which have been imported by PDL and,
therefore, there is no change in the characteristics of various
imported items under Heading 8421. Our attention was drawn to
the definition of 'manufacture' contained in Section 2(f) of the
Central Excise Act, 1944 as well as recent judgment dated
18.03.2015 in Civil Appeal No.8958 of 2003 rendered by this
Court in the case of M/s Satnam Overseas Ltd. v.
Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi 1 as also in the
case of Servo-Med Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of
Central Excise, Mumbai2. It was submitted that this Court
considered various earlier judgments and culled down the
principle that a duty of excise is levied on the manufacture of
1 2015-TIOL-66-SC-CX
2 2015 (319) E.L.T. 578 (S.C.)
Civil Appeal No. 6692 of 2004 and Anr. Page 5 of 9
excisable goods. 'Excisable goods' brings in the concept of
goods that are marketable, i.e. goods capable of being sold in the
market. On the other hand, manufacture is distinct from
saleability, which takes place on the application of one or more
processes. This Court clarified that each process may lead to a
change in the goods, but every change does not amount to
manufacture. There must be something more namely
transformation by which new and different article emerges which
has distinctive name, character or use.
M/S. Servo-Med Industries Pvt. Ltd vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, Mumbai on 7 May, 2015
7. Dubbing the aforesaid decision of the Authorities below as
erroneous, it was argued that each WPFS used by the appellant
independently fulfills the function described in Heading 8421. The
appellant only undertakes job work of mounting the imported
WPFS on base frame which can also be undertaken by the
customers at their end. It was pleaded that interconnection done
by the appellant merely facilitates use of filteration system by the
customers, otherwise, WPFS retains the same characteristics as
that of various items which have been imported by PDL and,
therefore, there is no change in the characteristics of various
imported items under Heading 8421. Our attention was drawn to
the definition of 'manufacture' contained in Section 2(f) of the
Central Excise Act, 1944 as well as recent judgment dated
18.03.2015 in Civil Appeal No.8958 of 2003 rendered by this
Court in the case of M/s Satnam Overseas Ltd. v.
Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi 1 as also in the
case of Servo-Med Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of
Central Excise, Mumbai2. It was submitted that this Court
considered various earlier judgments and culled down the
principle that a duty of excise is levied on the manufacture of
1 2015-TIOL-66-SC-CX
2 2015 (319) E.L.T. 578 (S.C.)
Civil Appeal No. 6692 of 2004 and Anr. Page 5 of 9
excisable goods. 'Excisable goods' brings in the concept of
goods that are marketable, i.e. goods capable of being sold in the
market. On the other hand, manufacture is distinct from
saleability, which takes place on the application of one or more
processes. This Court clarified that each process may lead to a
change in the goods, but every change does not amount to
manufacture. There must be something more namely
transformation by which new and different article emerges which
has distinctive name, character or use.
The Central Excise Act, 1944
1