Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.20 seconds)
Vivek Re-Rolling Mills vs Collector Of Central Excise on 21 July, 1994 cites

Collector Of Central Excise, Hyderabad vs Chemphar Drugs & Liniments, Hyderabad on 14 February, 1989

Again in the case of Collector of C. Excise v. Chemphar Drugs and Liniments, reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 276, the Supreme Court has held that "in order to make the demand of duty sustainable beyond a period of six months and upto a period of 5 years in view of the proviso to Section 11A of the Act, it has to be established that the duty of excise has not been levied or paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded by reasons of either fraud or collusion or wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of the provisions of the Act or Rules made thereunder, with the intent to evade payment of duty. Something positive other than mere inaction or failure on the part of the manufacturer or producer or conscious or deliberate withholding of information when the manufacturer knew otherwise, is required before he is saddled with any liability, before the period of six months".
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 208 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Glindia Ltd. vs Union Of India on 19 April, 1988

3. Appearing on behalf of M/s. Vivek Re-rolling Mills, M/s. Bajrang Steel Rolling Mills, M/s. Bhartiya Steel Rolling Mills and M/s. Vishal Steel Rolling Mills, Shri R. Santhanam, Learned Advocate stated that the show cause notice as well as the adjudication order clearly ignored the prevailing practice in respect of similar finished product as specifically approved by the Central Board of Excise and Customs who had issued circulars from time to time to the effect that the inputs consisting of rejected railway material etc. could be treated as angles, shapes and sections specified in Column 2 against Serial No. 2 of the Table annexed to the Notification 202/88-C.E., dated 20-5-1988. He submitted that such inputs had always been regarded as duty paid and therefore the product manufactured therefrom had to be deemed as exempt from the payment of duty. He referred to the letter F. No. 139/40/87-CX4 dated 27-8-1987 issued by the Board in reply to the letter dated 29/30-4-1987 of the Central Excise Collectorate, Indore, wherein it was clarified that unserviceable railway material must be treated as angles, shapes and sections falling under Heading No. 7210.10 of the Central Excise Tariff. He submitted that whether old used and unserviceable rails purchased by re-rollers for cutting and rolling into various other products could be considered as material for railway track came up for consideration earlier when the Central Board of Excise and Customs had clarified by a letter F. No. B/28/8/83-TRU dated 8-9-1983 that all these materials would be treatable as railway material under Item 25(11) of the erstwhile Tariff and not under Tariff Item 25(10) since they were to be regarded as shapes and sections and it was further clarified that in all such cases the benefit of the exemption Notification 208/83, dated 1-8-1983 would be admissible. He also referred to the Trade Notice No. 31/CE/83 (3-TI 25) dated 14-9-1983 issued by the Chandigarh Collectorate wherein it was accepted that used railway materials are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 208/83. He contended that clarifications and circulars issued by the Board from time to time not having been withdrawn or modified during the period of demand, there was no justification for the Department to take a contrary view. He submitted that rejected railway materials were nothing but rollable or re-rollable materials which had been specifically included as inputs in Column 2 at Serial No. 2 of the Table annexed to the Notification No. 33/92 dated 1-3-1992 and the amending notification being clarificatory in nature it must be regarded as having retrospective effect as held by the Bombay High Court in the case of Glindia Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in 1988 (36) E.L.T. 479 and by CEGAT in a number of cases.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 11 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Collector Of Central Excise vs Alco Industries on 7 February, 1991

As held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Collector of C. Excise v. Alco Industries, reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 184 in interpreting a taxing statute the words used therein have to be construed in their own context and in the sense as ordinarily understood by people usually conversant and dealing in such goods and scientific, technical or dictionary meaning should not be mechanically adopted.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 7 - A S Anand - Full Document

Padmini Products vs Collector Of Central Excise, Bangalore on 18 August, 1989

In the case of Padmini Products v. Collector of Central Excise, 1989 (43) E.L.T. 195 (SC), the Supreme Court has held that mere failure or negligence on the part of the manufacturer to take out a licence or not to pay duty in case where there was scope for doubt as to whether goods were dutiable or not would not attract the extended limitation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 173 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Malhotra Iron And Steel Industries, ... vs M.M. Gupta And Anr. on 30 September, 1981

It is seen that while examining the question whether old and unserviceable rails could be deemed as "old and used re-rollable scrap" for purposes of Notification No. 206/63-C.E., dated 3-11-1963, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held in the case of Malhotra Iron & Steel Industries, Ahmedabad v. MM. Gupta and Anr., reported in 1988 (33) E.L.T. 344 that the materials in the shape of second class rails which are rejected by the Railway and which are used in the manufacture of other end products were unserviceable rails and such unserviceable rails were, therefore, "old and unserviceable re-rollable scrap". Since the railway authorities who are the main users of railway track material and other rolling stock had no use for the various materials used as inputs by the appellants, on the ratio of the Gujarat High Court judgment quoted above, such unserviceable railway materials would neither be treatable as railway track construction material falling under sub-heading 73.02 nor as "angles, shapes and sections" but only as "old and used re-rollable scrap". We are therefore of the view that during the relevant period old and unserviceable railway material used by the appellants was not covered by any of the inputs specified in Column 2 against Serial No. 2 of Notification No. 202/88-C.E., dated 20-5-1988 and accordingly the final products manufactured by the appellants by using such inputs were not eligible for exemption under the said notification. The appellants have contended that even if the inputs in question are held as "old and used re-rollable scrap", they have to be deemed as inputs specified in Notification 202/88-C.E., dated 20-5-1988 since the amending Notification No. 33/92-C.E., dated 1-3-1992 by which the item "rollable and re-rollable material" was added to the list of inputs specified in Notification No. 202/88-C.E. being clarificatory in nature has to be deemed as having retrospective effect. We are not impressed by the appellants argument since it is well settled that exemption notifications have to be construed strictly according to the words used therein and during the relevant period "old and used re-roll-able scrap" was not one of the specified inputs in Notification No. 202/88-C.E., dated 20-5-1988.
Gujarat High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1