Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1994 (6) TMI 68

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sable goods viz. Printed Cartons during 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85 from their factory on their own account as well as on behalf of others and denied the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 83/83 on the ground that aggregate value of the clearances exceeded the exemption limit. 3.Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, learned Counsel for the appellants attacked the impugned order mainly on three grounds : (i) He said that the Collector erred in clubbing the clearances of other 4 units with that of appellants on the ground that the Printed Cartons manufactured by other units were glued/pasted in the premises of the appellants. But it is a fact that other units have sent the printed paper or paper board to M/s. Janta Paper Box Makers whi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that no question of double taxation arises as duty is leviable only once on the plywood as it comes out of the press in the panel or block stage and no further duty is to be levied on the cartons which are made out of the plywood blocks or panels while interpreting Section 2(f) of the Act with reference to Tariff Item 16B as it stood at that time. He also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Telangana Steel Industries and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others - 1994 (73) E.L.T. 513 (S.C.) = 1994 (93) STC Page-187 wherein it was held that wires are not distinct from rods and where the wire rods purchased by the appellants had suffered sales tax in Andhra Pradesh, Sales Tax could not again be realised from the a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s of Notification No. 83/83. In support of his contention that assessable value has to be arrived at after allowing abatement of duty payable under Sec. 4(4)(d)(ii), he referred to a series of decisions including the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bata Shoe Company (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1985 (21) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.). 3A. It was contended by Shri Bhansali, learned Senior Departmental Representative for the Revenue that since the goods were manufactured in the premises of the appellants on behalf of others, appellants are the manufacturers and exemption is not applicable since the value of clearances by or on behalf of other manufacturer exceeded the exemption limit in terms of Noti- fication No. 83/ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tant case whether particular process amounts to manufacture is not an issue but more than that who is the manufacturer of the item in question and at what stage duty can be charged since the item has undergone more than one process, are the issues to be considered as it was rightly pointed out by the Departmental Representative. The item is chargeable to duty under Tariff Item 17(3) and Tariff Item 17 as it stood at the relevant point of time is as under :- Item No. Tariff Description Rate of duty 17. Paper and Paper Board, all sorts (including pasteboard, millboard, strawboard, cardboard and corrugated board), and articles thereof specified below, in or in relation to manufacture of which any process is o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... m is dummy unit nor appellants are the hired labourers, it cannot be said that appellants are not the manufacturer. Further, it is settled position that mere supplier of raw material is not the manufacturer but the person who manufactures is the manufacturer. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Department was justified in clubbing the clearances of other units since the goods were cleared on completion and treating the appellants as the manufacturers. On going through the tariff entry, we are not convinced with the arguments advanced by the appellants that duty can be charged only at the stage as soon as the goods were punched since the goods were completed even without glueing. It is true that they have reached the stage for the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates