SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(SC) 476

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top