Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 128 (0.68 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India And Ors vs Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. And Anr on 19 April, 1995

Cce, Raipur vs M/S Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd on 24 April, 2015

2. Shri Ranjan Khanna, the learned DR, assailed the impugned order by reiterating the grounds of appeal and pleaded that the Apex court judgment in the case of Union of India vs. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not applicable to the facts of this case in as much as the case under consideration by the Apex Court involved the dross and skimming removed during the period from September 1972 to March 1973 and during that period the aluminium dross and skimming were classified under Tariff item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff pertaining to goods not elsewhere specified while during the period of dispute, there is a heading 2620.00 specifically covering the ash and residue (other than, from manufacture of iron and steel) containing metals, that, beside this, during period of dispute, there is Chapter Note 3 to Chapter 26 which mentions that the heading 2620 applies only to, ash and residue of a kind used in the industry either for extraction of metal or as a basis for manufacture of chemical compounds of metals, that per MT price ranging from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 22,000/- at which the dross and skimming was being sold indicates that it is covered by Chapter Note 3, that while the Apex courts judgment in the case of Union of India vs. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. (supra) relied upon in the Commissioner (Appeals)s order is with regard to dross and skimming arising in course of melting of aluminium ingots, the dispute in the present case is in respect of dross and skimming which arise in course of manufacture of aluminium from alumina by electrolysis process and in the dross and skimming arising in the present case the metal content is much higher, that the dross and skimming arising in this case are marketable which is evident from the fact that the same were being regularly sold by the respondent, at the price ranging from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 22,000/- per MT which is close to the price of finished product, that these dross and skimming are arising regularly and, hence, in view of the Apex courts judgment in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. Bharat Petroleum reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 90 (S.C.), an intention to manufacture same has to be presumed and that in view of this, the impugned order holding that the aluminium dross and skimming arising in this case are not marketable and, hence, not excisable, is not correct. He also pleaded that the records of the respondent during the period from June 2003 to March 2005 also indicated that the aluminium dross and skimming were being sold regularly at the prices varying from 20,000 per MT to 22,000 per MT which clearly indicates that the market for this product existed.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

R.K. Refineries And Metal (P) Ltd. And ... vs General Manager, India Government Mint ... on 8 August, 2007

Because, it has been decided in the matter of Indian Aluminium (supra), that records maintained by the respondent whereupon the Revenue had relied upon might be relevant factor to identity "dross" as a marketable commodity but then percentage of metal in dross might not itself made it excisable if it was otherwise not and an article was not excisable to tax only because it might have some saleable value.
Calcutta High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - D K Gupta - Full Document

Collector Of Central Excise, Patna vs M/S Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd on 26 February, 2004

It is worth mentioning that in UOI & Ors. Vs. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. & Anr. [1995 Suppl;(2) SCC 465], it was held that waste or rubbish which is thrown up in the course of manufacture could not be said to be a produce of manufacture exigible to excise duty. In this case the assesses manufactured aluminium products out of the aluminium ingots. In the process of manufacture dross and skimmings arise and accumulate in the furnace in the shape of ashes as a result of oxidization of metal. Aluminium dross contain an amount of metal from which they come but they lack not only metal body but also metal strength, formability and character. Such dross and skimmings are distinct from scrap which is a metal of good quality. Dross and skimmings though obtained during process of manufacture were held to be not exigible to excise duty at the relevant time. Since the dross and skimmings were sold in the market it was argued that they were a marketable commodity and should be subject to levy of excise duty. The Court observed that these were nothing but waste or rubbish which is thrown up in the course of manufacture.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 43 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Rep. By Its Managing Director ... vs The Principal Secretary/Commissioner ... on 26 November, 2014

59. Therefore, going by the object of the enactment, the Assessing Officer is bound to examine the refund claim under Section 18 in accordance with the procedure stipulated for availing input tax credit by applying Section 19 of the VAT Act and it is only then, the Authority can pass an order on a refund claim. Therefore, the processing of refund application under Form W is in effect akin to an assessment proceedings since the benefit which flows under claim in Form W, is in effect, the amount which the dealer avail as refund would be a credit if the transaction was not a zero rated sale. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Indian Aluminium Co.Ltd., [1995 (77) ELT 268 (SC)], which arose out of the appeals filed by the Union of India Vs. Collector of Central Excise and the question regarding levy of excise duty on aluminium dross and skimmings, which were removed by the assessees without payment of duty. The Honourable Supreme Court examined the said manufacturing process and rendered the finding. The question whether in the manufacturing process, there is process loss is undoubtedly a question of fact. Whether lesser quantity of raw material would be sufficient to achieve the quantity of end product is also question of fact. Therefore, this decision in fact would render support to the conclusion of the Court stating that there cannot be a uniform percentage fixed by the authority and it has to be based on the individual manufacturing process. Hence, Question No.5 is answered in favour of the petitioners and it is held that the Assessing Officers were not justified in adopting uniform percentage as invisible loss and calling upon the dealer to reverse the refund/input tax credit availed to that extent. Consequently, all notices issued to the petitioner for reopening and all consequential order passed reversing the input tax credit to the extent of either 4% or 5% or adhoc basis stands set aside. However, liberty is granted to the concerned Assessing Officer to issue show cause notices to the petitioners clearly setting out the circumstances under which they propose to revise or call upon the petitioner to reverse refund sanctioned and after receiving their objections shall proceed in accordance with law.
Madras High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 0 - T S Sivagnanam - Full Document

Hindalco Industries Ltd vs Belapur, Mumbai Iii & Nagpur on 4 July, 2014

The honble apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Indian Aluminium Company Ltd. 1995 (77) ELT 268 (SC), in para 13 thereof, had noted that aluminium dross and skimmings do arise during the process of manufacture. It is, therefore, the Revenues contention that these are manufactured goods which are capable of being bought and sold for a consideration and hence they are marketable. Thus, aluminium dross and skimmings satisfy the twin tests of manufacture and marketability. It is therefore, urged that the reference be answered in favour of Revenue and against the appellants.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tinna Rubber & Infrastructure Limited vs Union Of India & Anr. on 3 May, 2017

It was sought to be contended that the decisions in Union of India v. Indian Aluminium Co Ltd. (supra) and consequently CCE v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Limited (supra) did not lay down good law. It was contended that since the value of dross was much more than the value of the aluminium itself, it would come within the purview of the term „goods‟.
Delhi High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Jsw Steel Ltd vs Belgaum on 22 August, 2023

In support of this, he has referred to the judgment of this Court in „Union of India and Others v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. and Another‟ [1995 Supp (2) SCC 465 = 1995 (77) E.L.T. 268 (S.C.)]. He submits that aluminium ash and dross were by-products which came into being during the manufacture of die-casting of aluminium parts. He has also pointed out that the CESTAT itself accepted, while deciding the issue for the future period, that the aforesaid case of the appellant is covered by the judgment of this Court in Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd.‟s case referred to above.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - D Gupta - Full Document

M/S Securipax India Pvt Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise on 2 September, 2013

In C.C. & C.E, Meerut-II v. Muzaffarnagar Pipe Industries (P) Ltd. (Supra) the Court found that the conditions in the notifications on direct receipt of inputs from manufacturer and endorsement on invoice that excise duty was paid was satisfied; and in Union of India v. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. (Supra) it was held that allegations, which were not part of show cause notice could not be made a ground for confirming the demand. It was held that non-observance of procedural condition could not be a ground to deny the credit when there was no dispute regarding duty payment and the use of goods in manufacture of final products.
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next