Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 40 (0.66 seconds)
Documents citing Commnr.Of Central Excise, Chennai-Ii vs M/S. Tarpaulin International on 4 August, 2010

M/S Printo India Graphics (P) Limited vs Cce, Delhi-I on 28 April, 2011

In Tarpaulin International case, the issue before the Apex Court was whether the tarpaulin made-ups which were prepared after cutting and stitching the tarpaulin fabric and fixing the eyelets involved process of manufacture and would fall within the definition of the said term, it was held that the process did not change the basic characteristic of the raw material and the end product. The process did not bring into existence new and distinct product with total transformation in original commodity. The original material used i.e. tarpaulin still remained and was called tarpaulin made-ups even after undergoing the process. Hence, it cannot be said that the process is a manufacturing process. The process of stitching and fixing eyelets would not amounting to manufacture process since tarpaulin after stitching and fixing eyeleting continues to be only cotton fabric. The purpose of fixing eyelets is not to change the fabric. Therefore, even though there is value addition, the same is minimum.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 30 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Ltd. Plot No. 18 vs Pio Food Packers on 10 May, 2022

9. To support his argument, Mr. Alok Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant has cited various judgments rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court viz. Deputy Commissioner Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam Vs. PIO Food Packers, decided on 9.5.1980; Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut Vs. Goyal Gases (P) Ltd. decided on 3.4.2000l Union of India Vs. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. decided on 9.12.1997; Servo-Med Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Mumbai decided on 7.5.2015; Satnam Overseas Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi decided on 18.3.2015 and Commissioner of C.Ex., Chennai-II Vs. Tarpaulin International decided on 4.8.2010.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Metalite Industries 3, Ansari Road, ... vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax Delhi on 24 January, 2011

15. Similarly, the cases of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co Ltd (supra) which related to cutting of steel plates, drilling holes, riveting or fastening them with nuts and bolts and of Tarpaulin International (supra) which related to stitching tarpaulin sheets and fixing eyelets are distinguishable too from the facts of present case. In both these cases it was held that the processes did not bring into existence new and distinct products with total transformation in the original commodity.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - M L Mehta - Full Document

M/S Metalite Industries 3, Ansari Road, ... vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax Delhi on 24 January, 2011

15. Similarly, the cases of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co Ltd (supra) which related to cutting of steel plates, drilling holes, riveting or fastening them with nuts and bolts and of Tarpaulin International (supra) which related to stitching tarpaulin sheets and fixing eyelets are distinguishable too from the facts of present case. In both these cases it was held that the processes did not bring into existence new and distinct products with total transformation in the original commodity.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - M L Mehta - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S Casting India Inc & Anr on 22 August, 2016

 Unless there is a distinct marketable commodity produced by the manufacturer, the commodity cannot be said to have been manufactured. Every change is not a manufacture. Stitching of Tarpaulin sheets and eyelets does not change the basic character of the raw material and the end product does not bring into existence the new and distinct product with total transformation in original commodity. The process involved may be cutting, slitting and fixing of eyelets, but, no new article is emerging out of the raw material - tarpaulin sheets. Manufacturing implies a change, but, every change is not a manufacture and yet every change in an article is the result of treatment, labour and manipulation. But, something more is necessary. There must be transformation, a new and different article must emerge having a distinct name, character or use. Paragraph nos. 13 and 15 and 23 of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Tarpaulin International reported 2010 (256) ELT 481 (SC) reads as under:
Jharkhand High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Geeta Bright Bar Works Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Mumbai ... on 2 August, 2011

In the case of Commissioner of C.Ex. Chennai-II Vs. Tarpaulin International reported in 2010 (256) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) the Honble Apex Court has observed that manufacture implies a change, but every change is not a manufacture and yet every change in an article is the result of treatment, labour and manipulation. But something more is necessary There must be transformation, a new and different article must emerge, having a distinctive name character or use. Whenever a commodity undergoes a change as a result of some operation performed on it or in regard to it, such operation would amount to processing of the commodity.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 12 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

M/S. Natraj Album Industries Ltd vs Cce, Gurgaon on 27 November, 2013

The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai vs. Tarpaulin International [2010 (256) ELT 481 (SC)] held that the process of converting tarpaulin sheets by stitching margins and fixing eyelets does not amount to manufacture inasmuch as the said process do not change the basic characteristic of the raw material into something different. The original material which was tarpaulin is still called tarpaulin made ups even after undergoing the said process of stictching and fixing eyelets. Accordingly, the Honble Supreme Court held that to attract duty there should be manufacture to result in different goods and mere conversion of the tarpaulin into tarpaulin made up would not amount to manufacture.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Belapur vs Upm Kymmene India Pvt. Ltd on 28 January, 2015

In addition, the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Rajpurohit GMP India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2003 (162) ELT 431 (Tri.-Mum); Honble Supreme Courts decision in the case of Printo India Graphics (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 2012 (282) ELT A46 (SC) and similar case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Tarpaulin International 2010 (256) ELT 481 (SC) were also referred in support of the departments contention.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next