Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.51 seconds)
M/S. Quippo Energy Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise ... on 19 September, 2025 cites

M/S. Satnam Overseas Ltd vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, New Delhi on 18 March, 2015

40. At first glance, it may seem that the observations in various decisions discussed above fortify the appellant’s stance that no transformation could have occurred from placing imported Genset into a steel container and fitting the steel container with multiple additional components. The appellant may legitimately argue, in the facts of the present case, like in the aforementioned cases: (i) no change in end use of the subject article is occurring [Servo-Med (supra)]; (ii) merely form is being changed for the sake of convenience [S.R Tissues (supra)] and utility [Maruti Suzuki (supra)]; and (iii) the additional elements do not change the character of the good [Satnam Overseas (supra)]. Consequently, undertaking the necessary process would not amount to “manufacture” under Section 2(f) of the Act, 1944.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 12 - A K Sikri - Full Document

M/S. Crane Betel Nut Powder Works vs Commissioner Of Customs & Central ... on 19 March, 2007

“11. The first judgment which we want to mention, which was cited by Ms. Charanya, is Crane Betel Nut Powder Works v. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise, Tirupathi. In the said case the Assessee was engaged in the business of marketing betel nuts in different sizes after processing them by adding essential/non-essential oils, menthol, sweetening agent etc. Initially, the Assessee cleared the goods under Chapter Sub- heading 2107 of the Central Excise Tariff and was paying duty accordingly. However, the Assessee filed a revised classification declaration Under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, with effect from 17th July, 1997, claiming classification of its product under Chapter Sub-heading 0801.00 of the Civil Appeal Nos. 9418-9420 of 2016 Page 29 of 39 Central Excise Tariff. It was contended by the Assessee that the crushing of betel nuts into smaller pieces with the help of machines and passing them through different sizes of sieves to obtain goods of different sizes/grades and sweetening the cut pieces did not amount to manufacture in view of the fact that mere crushing of betel nuts into smaller pieces did not bring into existence a different commodity which had a distinct character of its own.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 43 - A Kabir - Full Document
1   2 3 Next