Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 41 (0.71 seconds)
Documents citing The Delhi Cloth And General Mills Co. ... vs The Joint Secretary, Govt. Of India And ... on 16 February, 1978

Ilac Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 19 March, 1985

Referring to the decision of the New Delhi High Court on Delhi Cloth Mills v. Joint Secretary, Government of India, Civil Writ No. 1358/75 1978 E.L.T. (J. 121) (Delhi), the learned counsel said that the counsel for M/s ILAC had read only the head notes. A close reading of the text will reveal that the direction of the judgment was not quite what the learned counsel thought it was. The judgment refers to Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. This is a section that regulates the determination of the value of excisable goods for purposes of charging excise duty. It requires that the normal price of the goods should be the price at which such goods are "ordinarily" sold by the assessee to a buyer. Now, it may be true that in this case the calcium carbide and acetylene were not sold but this must not deceive us into thinking that it has no commercial value. The calcium carbide was used to produce acetylene and other goods. This then proved that it had value; without such value, it would not be able to produce other goods, commodities, products. The factory took the trouble to utilise it and this is enough to make it an excisable commodity. The law does not state that if a goods is not according to the Indian Standards, it will not be deemed to be a goods for assessment to duty. The relevance of Indian Standards is only when they compete with foreign standards, they will be preferred to the latter; but it does not follow that the Indian Standard will determine excisability. It may be true that in the South Bihar Sugar Mills decision, the Court decided that kiln gas was not carbon dioxide but she was unable to see the relevance of this decision because in this case the calcium carbide and the acetylene were the most important constituents in the products which was not the case with the carbon dioxide in kiln gas. The fact that the calcium carbide and acetylene were not sold, makes no difference and does not affect in any way whatever the excisability and liability to duty of the two products.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 13 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Pfizer Ltd. vs Cce on 18 November, 2002

4. We are concerned in this appeal with the sugar syrup which contained some quantity of saccharin. None of the four decisions of the Tribunal that the departmental representative cites deals with sugar syrup containing saccharin, nor does the opinion of the Chief Chemist referred in the Board's circular. In any event all that the opinion says is that the sugar syrup has shelf life. In its decision relating to the same substance in the earlier appeal, the Tribunal was not concerned with the shelf life of the product or whether it is physical or chemical characteristics prevented it from being sold. In fact it was not claimed by the appellant earlier, nor is contended before us now, that the product has a short shelf life that it cannot be sold or that it contains chemical or physical characteristics which render it incapable of being marketed. The only contention that was raised, which was accepted, was that, by the application of the ratio of the Delhi High Court's judgment in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. v. Joint Secretary, the goods have to be held not to be marketable because their sale would be contrary to law. The arguments of the departmental representative with regard to the other aspects therefore are not relevant.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Davangere Cotton Mills Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 3 March, 1986

"15. The Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the petitioners in each of these petitions has relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Joint Secretary, Government of India and anr., 1978 E.L.T. (J 121). In that case, the question before the Delhi High Court was whether excise duty was leviable on calcium carbide produced by the Delhi Cloth and General Mills which was consumed in the manufacture of acetylene gas. It was found as a fact that calcium carbide manufactured by the company was not known to the market as calcium carbide, and one of the contentions which was also urged before the Delhi High Court was that calcium carbide was not removed from the factory of the petitioner and the passage of calcium carbide from the plant where calcium carbide was manufactured to the plant where acetylene gas was manufactured, both plants being located in the same factory, was not tantamount to removal from the factory to any other place. It is obvious from what we have stated in connection with the two cases of the Supreme Court referred to above that since calcium carbide which was produced by the manufacturer before the Delhi High Court did not amount to a marketable commodity known to the market as such, excise duty was not payable on the intermediate product in that particular case. However, while dealing with the question of removal from the factory, it is to be noted that the provisions of Section 4 were sought to be invoked. Now, as we have stated in the course of this judgment, Section 4 applies in those cases where excise duty "is leviable ad valorem and the provisions of Section 4 provide how value has to be determined for the purpose of levying and collection of ad valorem duty. In the case before us where excise duty has to be paid on the basis of weight of yarn, the question of invoking Section 4 does not arise, and whatever has been said by the Delhi High Court in the context of the provisions of Section 4 will, therefore, not apply in the instant case. However, the Learned Advocate-General relied very strongly on the decision of the Delhi High Court on point 4 at page J-126 of the report. He relied on the following passage :
Karnataka High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Punjab National Fertilizers And ... vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 6 April, 1988

8. The decision of Delhi High Court reported in 1978 ELT (J 121) in the case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited and Anr. v. Joint Secretary, Government of India and Anr. also does not help the case of the appellants. In the said case, Calcium carbide in naked form was produced and used in the manufacture of acetylene gas within the factory of manufacture. Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the said calcium carbide was not "goods" because it did not attain the material form and purity as required by the Carbide of Calcium Rules, 1937 and hence, was not liable to excise duty under Item 14AA. The said decision is not applicable to the present case as the facts are different. The marketability of Calcium carbide was governed by Chapter III of the Carbide of Calcium Rules, 1937 made under Petroleum Act, 1934. Rule 20 of the Carbide of Calcium Act, 1937 required that Calcium Carbide must attain the requisite degree of purity before it could he-rendered commercial or marketable. Calcium Carbide which did not attain the material form and composition required by the Carbide of Calcium Rules for marketability, was not marketable at all in view of the prohibition imposed by the Carbide of Calcium Rules. As the Calcium Carbide manufactured by the petitioners in that case, did not satisfy the requirement of the said Rules, the Hon'ble High Court held that those were not Calcium Carbide as commercially known and hence not dutiable under Tariff Item 14AA. In the present case, there is no such requirement.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hiranyakeshi Sahakari Sakkare ... vs C.C.E. on 21 December, 1988

In this connection the learned JDR relies on 1987 (31) ELT 995 in the case of M.M. Khambhatwala, Ahmedabad v. Collector of Central Excise, Baroda and 1978 ELT (J 121) in the case of Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Joint Secretary, Government of India and Anr. However, Shri Chakraboraty submits that it is not clear whether the unit having distillery is also manufacturing excisable goods, and is factory within the meaning of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. It is, therefore, recommended that the matter may be remanded for readjudication after factual verification in this regard.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

L.M.L. Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 8 February, 1990

Therefore, if the appellants had not chosen to sell mother yarn, it does not determine marketability of the article. The learned D.R. urged that the question has to be decided with reference to the product. It may so happen that the advanced process of technology in manufacture, as adopted by the appellants herein is such that is not available to others in the field and if in such circumstances, mother yarn produced by them is not marketed, it is only an extra-ordinary situation. The capability of being sold, according to the Departmental Representative, is a quality of product. He referred-to the Delhi High Court decision reported in 1978 (2) ELT 121 in the case of Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Joint Secretary Government of India, highlighting three aspects namely, material, economic and legal, which should be considered, when examining this question and applying this criteria in the present case, there is no legal bar on the sale of the product and economic usefulness as material is attributable to mother yarn because it is used in the manufacture of mono-filament yarn. He also pointed out that as a matter of fact, the appellants had cleared some quantity of mother yarn and sold it. The learned DR further argued that the Collector's reliance on the proviso to Notification 47/85 in arriving at a finding that mother yarn is dutiable is well-founded because the notification is part of the Act as the notification fixes the effective rate. The statute provision has to be considered alongwith rules and notification because levy and exemption are two facets of policy. To find out the true nature of a tax, according to the learned DR, the levy as well as the exemption therefrom have to be considered. He cited the Supreme Court decision reported in AIR 1957 SC 790 to support his argument that exemption contained under the notification is a part of the Act. As regards the argument put-forth that manufacture of yarn is complete only at the stage when it is wound on cops, the learned DR contended that the CEGAT's decision relied upon in this context was based on certain admission of fact which is not altogether correct because at the time CEGAT was not made aware of the dispute regarding the dutiability of the yarn at the earlier stage of production namely, at the multi-filament or mother yarn stage. It was his submission that the previous CEGAT decision, if wrong on facts, need not have a binding effect. Referring to the arguments that RG-1 stage was already decided by the department as that of split yarn, Shri Chakraborty contended that RG-1 stage for yarn is at spinnerette stage which is a point not considered by the Additional Collector in his adjudication order. He also referred to the principle laid down in the decision reported in 1982 ELT 705 of the Govt. of India that excisability of cotton yarn is at spindle stage before sizing and accordingly, in the present case, multi-filament yarn fully drawn and wound on pools becomes at the stage a complete product as multi-filament yarn. The Govt. of India's instructions regarding RG-1 stage relied upon by the appellants is also of no avail because it does not have any retrospective effect and secondly, the present case arises under the old Central Excise Tariff whereas the Govt. of India's clarification is with reference to the Heading under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 31 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Maneklal Harilal Spg. And Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 10 August, 1978

15. The learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the petitioners in each of these petitions has relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Joint Secretary, Government of India and Anr. 1978 Excise Law Times (J 121). In that case, the question before the Delhi High Court was whether excise duty was leviable on calcium carbide produced by the Delhi Cloth and General Mills which was consumed in the manufacture of acetylene gas. It was found as a fact that calcium carbide manufactured by the company was not known to the market as calcium carbide, and one of the contentions which was also urged before the Delhi High Court was that calcium carbide was not removed from the factory of the petitioner and the passage of calcium carbide from the plant where calcium carbide was manufactured to the plant where acetylene gas was manufactured, both plants being located in the same factory, was not tantamount to removal from the factory to any other place. It is obvious from what we have stated in connection with the two cases of the Supreme Court referred to above that since calcium carbide which was produced by the manufacturer before the Delhi High Court did not amount to a marketable commodity known to the market as such, excise duty was not payable on the intermediate product in that particular case. However, while dealing with the question of removal from the factory, it is to be noted that the provisions of Section 4 were sought to be invoked. Now, as we have stated in the course of this judgment, Section 4 applies in those cases where excise duty is leviable ad valorem and the provisions of Section 4 provide how value has to be determined for the purpose of levying and collection of ad valorem duty. In the case before us where excise duty has to be paid on the basis of weight of yarn, the question of invoking Section 4 does not arise, and whatever has been said by the Delhi High Court in the context of the provisions of Section 4 will, therefore, not apply in the instant case. However, the learned Advocate General relied very strongly on the decision of the Delhi High Court on point 4 at page J-126 of the Report. He relied on the following passage:
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Oudh Sugar Mill Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 13 April, 1981

22. Thus the cases Delhi Cloth and General Mills (supra); Sudarshan Chemicals Ltd. (supra); Modi Carpets Ltd. (supra); Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. (supra) and Oudh Sugar Mills (supra) are distinguishable even on the question of fact inasmuch as the intermediate products in those cases were either not goods at all within the meaning of Central Excises and Salt Act or were used for the manufacture of finished goods (and the process was one continuous integrated process) in a plant which was a component of the bigger plant, while in the case before us the intermediate product is not only goods by itself, but it was used as a raw material for manufacture of another goods and the process for manufacturing the same is a discontinuous and disintegrated one.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bongaigaon Refinery And Petrochem. ... vs Collr. Of C. Ex. (A) on 23 April, 1992

6. The first writ application was disposed of by this Court by a Judgment dated 11th June, 1991. The detailed facts relating to this case have already been set out in that judgment. The court set aside the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) on the ground that the Collector had not properly addressed himself to the definition of the word "factory" in the Act nor had he considered the decisions cited by the petitioner before him in determining the merits of the petitioner's case. The matter was accordingly remanded back to the Collector (Appeals) directing him to determine the issue having regard to the principles of law enunciated in the decisions of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - and Sreeram Piston & Rings Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, and Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Ltd. and Anr. v. Joint Secretary, Government of India, . The Collector was also directed to give the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The respondents were restrained from raising any demand on the basis of the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise subject to the petitioner's undertaking to this court not to deal with or dispose of its assets without the leave of this court and except in the usual course of business.
Calcutta High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 5 - R Pal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next