9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1035X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mbling all the items received from M/s. Perfect Drug Ltd. on a base plate and thus brings into existence a new and commercially different commodity known as Water Purification & Filteration System. Finding of fact is arrived at by all the three Authorities that the activity undertaken by the appellant amounts to “manufacture” within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, since the end result of the process or activity resulted in new and different commercial product. We, thus, are of the opinion that on the basis of the aforesaid findings which are concurrent findings of all the Courts below, the correct legal principle has been applied. - No merit found in appeal - Decided against assessee. - Civil Appeal No. 6692 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise duty. Show cause notice dated 13.05.1998 was served upon the appellant. 3. The appellant submitted its reply taking the defence that it was only carrying out the job work of WPFS on the base frame and, therefore, it did not amount to manufacture of any new product. The appellant also submitted that WPFS are of three types: i) WPFS with Dual Cartridges ii) WPFS with Single Cartridge iii) WPFS with Single cartridge Electronic Control Unit The filter housing and cartridge are imported by PDL through M/s Cuno Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore and UV based Filteration and Purification unit from Rathi Brothers/ IWT Poona. The following types of Cartridges are used for the above: i) Dirt and Rust Filteration Cartridge ii) Triple ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 6,04,624/- and a penalty was also imposed on the appellant. Appellant preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) against the aforesaid order which was, however, dismissed by the Commissioner on 28.02.2002. This order was challenged by the appellant before Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). CESTAT has also dismissed the appeal of the appellant. Still not satisfied with the outcome, present appeal is preferred by the appellant under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal. 6. As is clear from the aforesaid narration of the facts, the appellant has lost before all the fora below who have concurrently held that the activity undertaken by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stinct 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. 8. We may remark that learned counsel for the appellant may have rightly stated the proposition of law predicated on the aforesaid judgments. In fact, we find that the Tribunal was conscious of this very principle and, therefore, the entire inquiry surrounded the issue as to whether new product, different from earlier one had come into existence after the process that was undertaken by the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
