Castrol Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 31 December, 1984
(iv) Shree Synthetics Limited v. Union of India (1982 E.L.T 97) (Madhya Pradesh) dated 16-1-1982.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.71 seconds)Raipur Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 2 April, 1983
In the case of Shree Synthetics Ltd., Ujjain v. Union of India and Ors. [1982 ELT (97 MP)], the question which arose was whether certain excisable goods which were liable to be charged at a particular rate during the period of their manufacture attracted the higher rate of duty in force when they were cleared from the factory. Their Lordships held that the crucial time for the levy of duty is the time of removal as envisaged by Rule 9A of the Central Excise Rules and not the date of manufacture or production of goods in the factory. In the present case, however, the situation is different from those in the three cases referred to above. We are concerned with the question of what is the relevant date for determination of the applicable rate of duty on excisable goods (for the sake of facility we may refer to these as "In-puts") manufactured by a manufacturer and removed within the factory from the place of manufacture to another place within the factory for manufacture of other excisable goods (we may refer to these as 'finished goods') at a time when a concessional rate of duty was in force in relation to the 'in-puts' although at the time when the 'finished goods' were cleared and said concessional rate on the 'in-puts' was no longer in force.
Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 9 January, 1984
In Shree Synthetic Ltd., Ujjain v. Union of India and Ors. (1982 E.L.T. 97), "the goods were exigible to Excise Duty both on the date of manufacture and on the date of removal". (Para 8 of the judgment).
Collector Of Central Excise vs Parmali Wallace Ltd. on 29 January, 1985
Indeed, in the Shree Synthetics case (vide para 37 above), the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, headed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of that High Court, after taking note of the decision of the same High Court in the Kirloskar Brothers case, and of the fact that the SLP in that regard had been dismissed on merits, considered that the Kirloskar Brothers case was distinguishable on facts and the decision in that case must be confined to its own facts. We are in respectful agreement with the Madhya Pradesh High Court that, in considering the effect of the various judgments, it is necessary to take into account the situations to which they are applicable, and to draw distinctions wherever such distinctions are justified. It is on the basis of distinctions between relevant factors that we have set out in para 35 above four different situations. We have also set out the judicial decisions relating to each situation. The situation before us is squarely covered by the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Kesar Sugar Works, and no contrary decision relating to such a case has been brought to our notice.
Bajaj Tempo Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 8 September, 1994
1. This order shall also govern the disposal of the Connected Writ Petitions
particularised as M.P. No. 1350/88 (National Steel Industries Ltd v. The
Collector of Customs and Central Excise and Ors.), M.P. No. 1101/88 (Indore
Steel and Iron Mills Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.), M.P. No. 933/90 ( Shree Synthetic Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.), M.P. No. 1076/90 (STI Biplus Tubing (India) Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.), and M.P. No. 932/90
(Reliance Ispat Industries Ltd v. Union of India and Ors.).
Bajaj Tempo Limited vs Union Of India on 9 September, 1994
1. This order shall also govern the disposal of the Connected Writ Petitions particularised as M.P. No. 1350/88 (National Steel Industries ltd. v. The Collector of Customs and Central Excise and Ors.) M.P. No. 1101 /88 (Indore Steel and Iron Mills Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.), M.P. No. 933/90 (Shree Synthetic Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.), M.P. No. 1076/90 (STI Biplus Tubing (India) Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.), and M.P. No. 932/90 (Reliance Ispat Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.).
New Tobacco Company Ltd. vs Superintendent Central Excise on 6 April, 1990
In Shree Synthetics Limited v. Union of India - 1982 (10) ELT 97 (M. P.) the question of excise duty in terms of the taxable event has been discussed with reference to the scope of Rule 9A. It was held that although excise duty is a tax on manufacture or production of goods, yet it need not necessarily be levied at the stage of manufacture of production but may be levied at a later stage for administrative convenience. This inference is supported from Section 4 of the Central Excise Act whereunder the material point of time with reference to which the value has to be determined is the time of `removal of the goods' from the factory and not the time when it is manufactured or produced. Therefore, the crucial time for levy of duty is the time of removal as envisaged by Rule 9A and not the date of manufacture or production of goods in the factory. It is manifest that the view expressed in the aforesaid decision tallies with the view that we are inclined to take in this case.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 26 July, 1984
In this context, he drew our attention to the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Shree Synthetics Ltd., Ujjain v. Union of India and Ors.- 1982 ELT 97 (M.P). particularly para 8 thereof. The decision of the same High Court in Kirloskar Bros.
Beardsell Ltd. vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 8 June, 1989
7. The judgment in Shree Synthetics Ltd. (supra) is against the appellants. The learned Advocate heavily relied on the judgment of the High Court of M.P. in the case of Kirloskar Brothers. This judgment was referred to in Shree Synthetics Ltd. and the court recorded that in Shree Synthetics the goods were liable to excise duty both on the date of manufacture and on the date of removal and never wholly exempt. Therefore, they did not follow Kirloskar Brothers. The learned Advocate pointed out that in the light of Shree Synthetics, Kirloskar Brothers judgment holds good when the goods were totally exempt at the time of manufacture and not partially exempt as in Shree Synthetics. This view cannot be accepted in view of the case law cited by the learned DR. The Tribunal's judgment in Peico Electronics and Electricals Ltd. is not directly relevant to the facts of the present appeal. However, the judgment of Gujarat High Court in Mihir Textiles Ltd. by a Division Bench, is in all fours and deals with the question in a very detailed manner. This judgment refers to the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kirloskar Brothers and several other judgments of High Courts as also of the Supreme Court. The Court clearly held that while the taxable event is the fact of manufacture or production of an excisable article the payment of duty is related to the date of removal of such articles from the factory. In para 16 of the judgment the Gujarat High Court specifically referred to the judgment of the M.P. High Court in Kirloskar Brothers and recorded reasons why it was not following the same. Of interest is paragraph 18 of this order wherein the Court noted that the view expressed by M.P. High Court in the case of Kirloskar Brothers has been disapproved by that very High Court in the subsequent decisions, M.P. No. 338/79 dated 16-1-1987.
C.J. Industries vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 7 November, 1986
(vii) Shree Synthetics Ltd. v. Union of India[l982 (10)E.L.T. 97] (Madhya Pradesh), dated 16-1-1982.