M/S. Ujjal Transport Agency, Asansol vs D.C.I.T., Central Circle-Xvi, ... on 14 July, 2017
Further, in Aluminium Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Coal Board AIR 1959 Cal.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.63 seconds)East India Transformer And Switch Gears ... vs Collector Of Central Excise on 22 March, 1989
He has referred to a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd v. Coal Board, He has laid special emphasis on para No. 17 of the said Judgment relevant extract of which is reproduced below:-
Pati Durga Cold Storage vs Income-Tax Officer on 30 May, 1986
Ltd. (supra), the Calcutta High Court decision in the case of Aluminium Corpn. of India Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court decision in the case of H. Anraj (supra), the Delhi High Court decision in the case of Indian Co-operative Union Ltd. (supra), the Kerala High Court decision in the case of Casino (P.)
Tata Chemicals Ltd. And Anr. vs State Of Gujarat on 22 February, 1988
Lastly reference was made to the Mica Mines Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1947 which to imposes as a cess a duty of customs on all Mica exported from the territories to which the Act applies for the purpose of creating a fund for improving the living and working conditions of the labour employed in the Mica-Mining Industry. It will be seen from the aforesaid statutes that the primary object of all of them is to create a fund for the welfare of the labour employee in each industry by levying a duty of excise/custom as a cess. The limited purpose for which our attention was drawn to the charging sections of these other statutes was to show that a duty of excise was levied as a cess on the 'production' of the concerned minerals. This submission was further reinforced by a reference to the decision in Allumimium Corporation of India v. Coal Board wherein removal of coal was held to be 'production'.
R.K. Shah & Co. vs Union Of India on 15 October, 1997
In para 45 of the judgment in Empire Industries (supra) the Supreme Court referred to the case of Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. v. Coal Board, AIR 1959 Cal 222 where the objection was that although coal might be a material or commodity, it was not something which was produced or manufactured. The word 'produced' appearing in Entry 84 of List I of the seventh schedule, is used in juxtaposition with the word 'manufactured' and consequently it would appear to contemplate some expenditure of human skill and labour in bringing the goods concerned into the condition which would attract the duty. It was further observed that it was not required that the goods should be manufactured, in the sense that raw material should be used to turn out something different and it would still require that these should be produced in the sense that "some human activity and energy should be spent on them and these should be subjected to some processes in order that these might be brought to the state in which they might become fit for consumption". Therefore, the parties before the Supreme Court were held producers of coal.
Madras Rubber Factory Limited (Mrf ... vs Rubber Board, Kottayam And Ors. on 10 June, 1982
In Aluminium Corporation of India v. Coal Board, (AIR 1959 Cal 222) the question arose whether coal is a commodity produced and the question was answered in the affirmative. Calcutta High Court stated thus (para 17):
S.B. Cold Storage Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 26 August, 1986
" The objection of the petitioner in that case was that although coal might be a material or a commodity, it was not something which was produced and, therefore, the entry which applied to the goods produced in India could not apply to coal. No question of manufacture obviously arose. It was submitted that coal produced itself. This was rejected. The word ' produced ' appearing in Entry No. 84 of List I of the Seventh Schedule is used in juxtaposition to the word ' manufactured ' according to the Division Bench and used in connection with duty of excise and consequently it would appear to contemplate some expenditure of human skill and labour in bringing the goods concerned into the condition which would attract the duty. It was not required that the good should be manufactured in the sense that raw material should be used to turn out something altogether different. It would still require that these should be produced in the sense that some human activity and energy should be spent on them and these should be subjected to some processes in order that these might be brought to the state in which they might become fit for consumption. To speak of coal, the Division Bench was of the opinion, as produced in the sense of its being made a material of consumption by human skill and labour was entirely correct and had sanction of approved usage... expenditure of human skill and material have been used in the processing and it may not be that the raw material was first transformed but over the transformed material, further transformation was done by human labour and skill making it fit for human consumption. "
Misralal Jain And Anr. vs State Of Orissa And Anr. on 18 April, 1961
17. I may now notice an argument raised by the Advocate General based on the observations of the Calcutta High Court reported in Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. v. Coal Board, AIR 1959 Cal 222. There one of the important questions for decision was whether Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Coal-mines (Conservation and Safety) Act 1952 in so far as it purported to impose a duty on all coal raised and despatched to collieries was a valid piece of legislation. An attempt was made to uphold the validity of that Act by contending that under entry 54 of List 1 the power conferred on the legislature in respect of mineral development (after making the necessary declaration) impliedly included the power to levy taxes on minerals for that purpose. The learned Judges of the Calcutta High Court did not accept this argument but pointed out that taxes may be of two kinds; those imposed purely in aid of revenue and those imposed for the purpose of controlling the thing taxed. They further held that the tax imposed under the impugned provision was a tax in aid of the public revenue and that the power to levy such a kind of tax could not be inferred impliedly from Entry 54 alone, in view of the express mention in the Constitution of other Entries dealing with the power of taxation.
Empire Industries Limited & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 6 May, 1985
In the case of Aluminium
Corporation of India Ltd. v. Coal Board(1). a Division Bench
of Calcutta High Court had to consider this question in the
context of Coal Mines (Conservation and Safety) Act, 1952.
The objection of the petitioner in that case was that
although coal might be a material or a commodity, it was not
something which was produced and therefore the entry which
applied to the goods produced in India could not apply to
coal. No question of manufacture obviously arose. It was
submitted that the coal produced itself. This was rejected.
The word 'produced' appearing in entry No. 84 of List I of
the Seventh Schedule is used in just a position with the
word 'manufactured' according to the Division Bench and used
in connection with duty of excise and consequently it would
appear to contemplate some expenditure of human skill and
labour in bringing the goods concerned into the condition
which would attract the duty. It was not required that the
goods would be manufactured in the sense that raw material
should be used to turn out something altogether different.
It would still require that these should be produced in the
sense that some human activity and energy should be spent on
them and these should be subjected to some processes in
order that these might be brought to the state in which they
might become fit for consumption. To speak of coal, the
Division Bench was of the opinion, as produced in the sense
to its being made a material of Consumption by human skill
and labour was entirely correct and had sanction of approved
usage.
Gujarat vs Union on 30 April, 2012
In the case of Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. v. Coal
Board, AIR 1959 Cal 222, a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court had
to consider this question in the context of Coal Mines (Conservation
and. Safety) Act, 1952. The objection of the petitioner in that case
was that although coal might be a material or a commodity, it was not
something which was produced and therefore the entry which applied to
the goods produced in India could not apply to coal. No question of
manufacture obviously arose. It was submitted that the coal produced
itself. This was rejected. The word 'produced' appearing in Entry No.
84 of List I of the Seventh Schedule is used in juxtaposition with
the word 'manufactured' according to the Division Bench and used in
connection with duty of excise and consequently it would appear to
contemplate some expenditure of human skill and labour in bringing
the goods, concerned into the condition which would attract the duty.
It was not required that the goods would be manufactured in the sense
that raw material should be used to turn out something altogether
different. It would still require that these should be produced in
the sense that some human activity and energy should be spent on them
and these should be subjected to some processes in order that these
might be brought to the state in which they might become fit for
consumption. To speak of coal, the Division Bench was of the opinion.
as produced in the sense to its being made a material of consumption
by human skill and labour was entirely correct and had sanction of
approved usage.