COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD vs. M/S. ALDEC CORPORATION

C.A. No.-007814-007817 - 2004Supreme Court26 September 200510 pages
For Petitioner: P. PARMESWARANFor Respondent: K. R. SASIPRABHU
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court noted that the Commissioner had not properly considered relevant chapter notes, section notes, and the marketability of the product. However, given the department's prior acceptance of decisions that these activities did not constitute manufacture and the respondent acting on that basis for years, the court found no intention to evade duty.

What were the facts?

The department alleged that M/s Aldec Corporation, through job processors M/s VPI and M/s SREW, manufactured painted aluminium slats (PAS) for venetian blinds without paying excise duty. Aldec Corporation purchased aluminium sheets, which were then slit, re-rolled, and painted by the job processors before being sold by Aldec as a trader.

What were the issues?

Whether the fragmented activities of slitting, re-rolling, and painting aluminium sheets by different entities constituted 'manufacture' of a new, distinct product for excise duty purposes. The court also considered the intent to evade duty and the marketability of the final product.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(f),Section 35L(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 7814-7817 of 2004 PETITIONER: Commissioner of Central Excise,Hyderabad-II. RESPONDENT: M/s Aldec Corporation & Others DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/09/2005 BENCH: B.P. SINGH & S.H. KAPADIA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T KAPADIA, J.

The issue involved in these civil appeals under section 35L(b) of Central Excise Act, 1944 is \026 whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner was right in holding that the fragmented activities of M/s Aldec Corporation, M/s Vitthaleshwara Painting Industries (VPI) and M/s Srinivasa Rolling and Engineering Works (SREW) taken individually or jointly resulted in "manufacture" of a separate, independent and distinct identifiable product namely, painted aluminium slat (PAS) for venetian blinds classifiable under chapter sub-heading 7616. 90. On 8.11.1994, while patrolling, officers of Central Excise, Hyderabad inspected an auto-trolley bearing registration No.AHT-8500. On verification of the goods, being transported by the above trolley and on verification of documents produced by the driver, the officers f

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 2(f)

All 33 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(f) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →