Whether fixation of glasses on already manufactured doors and windows would amount to manufacture?

PJ/CASE LAW/2015-16/2592

Case:-COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III VERSUS CRYSTAL CORPORATION

Citation:- 2014 (310) E.L.T. 377 (Tri.-Del.)
Brief facts:–The appellant was manufacturing doors, windows and frames of the same at their factory located at Bhiwadi, Rajasthan. The same were being cleared by them on payment of duty, to their head office located at Gurgaon where glass and other rubber/metal fitments were being done at site so as to fix the doors and windows.

Appellants contention:-Revenue’s contention is that subsequent fixation of glass as also use of metal/rubber products amounts to further manufacture and the appellant should discharge further duty liability on the same. The proceedings initiated against them resulted in confirmation of demand of duty of Rs. 5,51,670/- along with confirmation of interest and imposition of penalty of identical amount.
Respondents contention:-Nobody appeared for the respondent.

Reasoning of judgment:-After appreciating the submissions made by learned DR and after going through the impugned order, tribunal find that the appellant was manufacturing doors, windows and frames of the same at their factory located at Bhiwadi, Rajasthan. The same were being cleared by them on payment of duty, to their head office located at Gurgaon where glass and other rubber/metal fitments were being done at site so as to fix the doors and windows. On appeal against the said order, appellate authority held in favour of the assessee, by observing that fixation of glass in already manufactured doors cannot be held to be emerging of a new product in as much as doors remain doors and windows remains windows. He also observed that there is nothing on record to show that after the fixation of glass on the doors and windows, the same can be removed as such, without breaking, etc., or in the same position in which case it has to be held that they have become immovable property.
The Tribunal find no infirmity in the said views of the Commissioner (Appeals). Admittedly, the said doors and windows have discharged the appropriate duty at the time of their removal from Bhiwadi factory. After putting glass in the same, they do not acquire a different name or character or different use so as to held that activity undertaken by the assessee at the site has resulted in any manufacturing activity.
In view of the above findings, the appeal filed by revenue was rejected.
Decision:- Appeal rejected.
Comment:- The analogy in the case is that according to section 2(f) a process is amounting to manufacture when the product acquires a different name or character or use leads to the emergence of new product The necessary thing is that the identity of the product must be changed after processing so as to render it as manufacture. In the present case, fixation of glass on already manufactured doors and windows did not result in emergence of new product and so the appeal filed by the revenue was rejected.
Prepared by-Neelam Jain

Comments

PJ/CASE LAW/2015-16/2592

Post a Comment

Query