A. M. AHMADI, B. P. JEEVAN REDDY
Brakes India – Appellant
Versus
Supdt. Of Central Excise – Respondent
ORDER
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The short question is whether brake lining blanks purchased by the appellant when put to the process of drilling, trimming and chamfering can be said to amount to manufacturing within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The High Court has examined this question in considerable detail and has then observed in paragraph 15 as under :
"If by a process, a change is effected in a product, which was not there previously, and which change facilitates the utility of the product for which it is meant, then the process is not a simple process, but a process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product. It will not always be safe solely to go by a test as to whether the commodity after the change takes in a new name, though in stated circumstances, it may be useful to resort to it. This may prove deceptive sometimes, for it will suit the manufacturer to retain and stamp the same name to the end product also. The character or use test has been given due importance by pronouncements of the Supreme Court. When adopting a particular process, if a transformation takes place, whic
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.