2026-VIL-1900-CESTAT-KOL-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Excise - Whether fitting of lenses into spectacle frames amounts to manufacture - The Appellant was alleged to be manufacturing Spectacles falling under CET 9004, and a SCN was issued invoking the extended period for the period November 2012 to June 2017 demanding duty. The Appellant contended that fixing of lenses in frames would not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, but the lower authorities confirmed the demand - Whether the fixing of lenses in the frames amounts to manufacture so as to attract duty under the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD - The issue whether fixing of lenses in the frames amounts to manufacture is no more res integra. The Madras High Court, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Mehta Opticians, held that an optician who only fits lenses into a spectacle frame carries out no process of manufacture and no separate or distinct commodity emerges. Manufacture implies a change, but every change would not be manufacture, and there must be a transformation of raw materials into a new and distinct article having a distinctive name, character or use. Even though the process involves skill and sophistication, the end result is only assembly of the lens with the frame, and refining and fine-tuning that is part and parcel of assembly does not tantamount to manufacture. The Revenue could not produce any contrary decision despite being granted time - The decision of the Madras High Court is squarely applicable to the facts of the case, the impugned order is set aside, and the appeal is allowed

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page