Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.25 seconds)
Documents citing Bmf Belting Ltd. vs Union Of India on 18 April, 1990

Bata India Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 24 December, 2001

In BMF Beltings Ltd. v. Union of India , the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that if the product in question is not generally marketed and is not known in the market as a product by itself which can be bought and sold across the counter in the open market then it does not come within the category of the 'goods' as envisaged under Section 3. By observing so the Hon'ble High Court has held that the unvulcanised friction cloth used in manufacture of belts not capable of being generally marketed cannot be held to be goods.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vikrant Tyres Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 10 September, 1991

10. Continuing his arguments on this point, Shri Chakrabarti cited the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Falcon Tyres Ltd., Mysore v. Collector of Central Excise, Mysore [1985 (21) E.L.T. 786] and the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in BMF Beltings Ltd. v. Union of India [1990 (50) E.L.T. 10]. It was decided in the latter case that friction cloth was not an excisable commodity because of being an intermediate product with short shelf life. He submitted that liner cloth is not needed for manufacture of rubberized tyre cloth and therefore, the question of exemption from countervailing duty would not arise.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1