9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Appeals under Section 35L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 regarding the liability to duty of manufacturing weighbridges. Summary: Issue 1: Manufacturing of Weighbridges The question before the Tribunal was whether the appellant, M/s. Narne Tulaman Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd., manufactured weighbridges and was liable to duty under the Act. The appellant claimed to have only manufactured the indicator system of the weighbridges, while the platform was obtained from others and the load cells were imported. The Tribunal found that the appellant brought the three components together, fitted and assembled them to create a new weighbridge, which was not excised before. The Tribunal held that as long as a weighbridge is made and completed, duty has to be paid on the complete machine. The definition of "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Act includes any process incidental to the completion of a manufactured product, and the activity of assembling the components to create a new commercial product constitutes manufacture. The Tribunal's decision was based on established principles that a new and different article must emerge with a distinctive name, character, or use. Issue 2: Liability for End Product The appellant contended that it was only preparing a part of the weighbridge, which should be dutiable separately. However, the appellant's activity of assembling the components resulted in the creation of a new product known in the market as a weighbridge, which made the appellant liable to duty as a manufacturer of the end product. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that if a part is dutiable, the entire end product should not be separately taxable. It was clarified that when both parts and the end product are separately dutiable, both are taxable. Therefore, the appellant's claim that it is only liable for the component part and not the end product was not accepted by the Tribunal. Conclusion: The Tribunal found that the appellant was liable for manufacturing the complete weighbridge and upheld the duty imposition. The appeals were dismissed, with a clarification that the order would not prejudice the appellant's right to claim abatement if entitled under the rules.
|
