Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.73 seconds)
Documents citing Ballarpur Industries Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 24 February, 1984

Malayala Manorama Company Limited vs Assistant Collector Of Customs And Ors. on 16 December, 1992

Collector of Customs, Madras and Ors. , Ballarpur Industries Ltd. v. Collector , Chetankumar & Co. and Ors. v. Collector of Customs, Madurai and Ors. , Prabhat Silk & Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, New Delhi and Ors. 1992 (38) ECR 16 (Guj), Shri Ramalinga Mills Private Limited and Ors. v. The Assistant Collector of Customs and Anr. [1988] 18 ECC 75 at page 78: 1982 KLJ 314, Aluminium Industries Ltd. v. Union of India 1984 KLT 599, Aluminium Industries Ltd. v. Union of India 1987 (1) KLT 653, Aluminium Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (1989 (1) KLT 355), and unreported decision in WA. No. 537 of 1969 (Omega Insulated Cable Co. (India) Ltd. v. The Collector of Customs, Madras.
Kerala High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Collector Of C. Ex. vs Balaji Vegetable Products on 21 August, 1989

(1) Ballarpur Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi -1989 (21) ECR 33 (Cegat SB-C) wherein, with reference to 7 items, it was held that all those inputs were essentially required for the manufacture of the product, in question, in that case (namely, paper or paper board). So, according to Shri Chakravorty, this is the criteria laid down by the Tribunal. But, in the present case also, as we discussed above, vitamins, especially, Vitamin 'A' is a necessary ingredient as it is a statutory requirement for manufacture of the product, in question. So, this judgment does not help the Revenue.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Seshasayee Paper And Boards Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 6 July, 1987

It was held that Cess became leviable from 1-11-1980 and the obligation of pay the same did not depend on the appointment of a Collector, but its assessment and collection accrued with effect from 1-11-1980 and it subsisted during the entire period, including the one when there was no collector to collect it. A similar view has been taken by this Tribunal in its Order No. 492/86-C dated 8-8-1986 in Appeal No. ED/SB/733/82-C in the case of Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras, Order No. 213/87-C dated 22-1-1987 in Appeal No. ED/SB/1246/83-C in the case of Ballarpur Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay and Order No, 464/87-C dated 30-6-1987 in Appeal No. ED/SB/2245/83-C in the case of Mandya National Paper Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore. We find no reason to take a different view and accordingly, following the aforesaid four decisions, we hold that the Cess was correctly recovered in the present case during the period from 1-11-1980 to 15-2-1981 and the appellants were not entitled to the refund thereof. There is, therefore, no justification to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities. In the result, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss this appeal.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

C.C. Ex. vs Rajaram Corn Products (Punjab) Pvt. ... on 25 April, 1994

8. We have considered the matter. According to Department that the substitution of the word 'inputs' by the word 'raw material' or 'component parts' by amending Notification No. 105/82-C.E., dated 28-2-1982 was intended to restrict the benefit of duty relief only in respect of raw material or component parts, unlike the concession which was available to all inputs before the said amendment to Notification No. 201/79-C.E., dated 4-6-1979. It was argued that although the above items are used in the manufacture of liquid Glucose but they are certainly not the raw materials for the manufacture of liquid glucose. When the similar issue had come up for consideration before the Tribunal in the case of Titaghur Paper Mills, reported in 1985 (21) E.L.T. 901 and in the case of Ballarpur Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1989 (39) E.L.T. 710, it observed that the term 'raw material' has to be interpreted in the circumstances of each case in the absence of any acceptable or useful definition of the term either in the Dictionary or in the technical literature and accordingly held that Sodium Sulphate lye, sodium sulphate, daicol and fluo solid lime used for bleaching of pulp should be considered as raw materials in the manufacture of paper; they serve a distinct and definite purpose in the process of manufacture and since they were essential raw materials, Department was not justified in denying the benefit in terms of Notification even after amendment. Ballarpur decision was challenged in appeal before the Supreme Court and the decision of the Tribunal was upheld by the Supreme Court as referred to above 1989 (43) E.L.T. 804. While upholding the view it was clearly held that items used in the end-product might undergo chemical or qualitative changes or while accelerating the chemical reactions, however may themselves remain uninfluenced and unaltered and remain independent of outside the end-product, still they are 'Raw material' for the end-product and are eligible for benefit in terms of Notification. The relevant test is not its presence in the end-product, but the dependence of the end-product for its essential presence at the delivery end of the process.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1