Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share M/s Quipo Energy Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Ahmedabad II 2025 INSC 1130
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
M/s Quipo Energy Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Ahmedabad II 2025 INSC 1130
A recent Supreme Court judgment offers a crucial lesson on the "manufacture" definition.
The court emphasized that simply adding value is not enough. The key is a "transformation test" combined with a "marketability test".
It distinguished between "parts" and "accessories," ruling that integrating integral components into a product to give it a new character, identity, and functional utility amounts to "manufacture." This ruling has significant implications for manufacturing and tax law.
Statutes and Laws:
* Central Excise Act, 1944: Section 2(f), Section 3
* Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
View all episodes
By Scoot Legal Translation & Transcription ServicesA recent Supreme Court judgment offers a crucial lesson on the "manufacture" definition.
The court emphasized that simply adding value is not enough. The key is a "transformation test" combined with a "marketability test".
It distinguished between "parts" and "accessories," ruling that integrating integral components into a product to give it a new character, identity, and functional utility amounts to "manufacture." This ruling has significant implications for manufacturing and tax law.
Statutes and Laws:
* Central Excise Act, 1944: Section 2(f), Section 3
* Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985