Gurind Sales Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Gurind Sales vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jul 30, 2004

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/36107

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/36107
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, N T C.N.B.
Decided On: Jul 30, 2004
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Gurind Sales

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)(172)ELT399TriDel

Excerpt

2. the appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the commissioner (appeals) whereby the commissioner (appeals) held that fixation of the duty paid mirror on mdf board amounts to manufacture.3. the contention of the applicant is that they are receiving duty paid mirrors and fixing these mirrors on the board. mirror remains mirror even after fixing on the board. the board is fixed to strength of mirror so that mirror can be hanged properly.4. the contention of the revenue is that after process is undertaking by the appellant putting the mirror on the board comes into existence a new product, therefore, it amounts to manufacture.5. we find that there is no dispute regarding the process undertaking by the appellant. the duty paid mirror and simply pasted on board and the mirror remains mirror and no new product comes into existence. in these circumstances, the activity undertaking by the appellant does not amount to manufacture. therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

Full Judgment

2. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that fixation of the duty paid mirror on MDF Board amounts to manufacture.

3. The contention of the applicant is that they are receiving duty paid mirrors and fixing these mirrors on the Board. Mirror remains mirror even after fixing on the board. The board is fixed to strength of mirror so that mirror can be hanged properly.

4. The contention of the Revenue is that after process is undertaking by the appellant putting the mirror on the board comes into existence a new product, therefore, it amounts to manufacture.

5. We find that there is no dispute regarding the process undertaking by the appellant. The duty paid mirror and simply pasted on board and the mirror remains mirror and no new product comes into existence. In these circumstances, the activity undertaking by the appellant does not amount to manufacture. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Gurind Sales vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Excise Same Judge S Kang, N T C.N.B.