Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.22 seconds)Collector Of Central Excise vs Birla Jute And Industries Limited on 5 October, 1989
In the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Birla Jute and Industries Ltd., 1990 (46) E.L.T. 569 (Tribunal) and 1993 (67) E.L.T. 312 (Tribunal), there were two factories, the new one was at some distance separated by a wall although there was a convey or belt connecting the 'old' and the 'new' factory. This convey or belt was for carrying clinkers from the new factory to the old factory. It was shown in that case with sufficient evidence that the assessee had installed completely new plant starting from the stage of crushing lime stone, to the stage of packing. The new unit was separately licenced under the Factories Act and had separate agreement for supply of power with Rajasthan State Electricity Board. These cases in no way substantiate the case of appellants.
Union Of India And Ors vs M/S. Wood Papers Ltd. And Anr on 24 April, 1990
13. The question which one has to ask is - whether the assessee's factory commenced production during the given period. It is not the question of including one or excluding the other manufacturer from the purview of the exemption. There could be exemption to all the units; there could be exemption only to existing units or there could be exemption to new units. If production relatable to expansion is sought to be covered by exemption, then it could be so specified. Manufacturing in a factory commencing production during a particular period is not the same as the manufacturing consequent upon the expansion of an existing factory. Whenever exemption is intended to any goods produced consequent upon the expansion of an existing unit, it is so specifically provided. Notification No. 163/65-C.E. exempted paper of all sorts in addition to the paper produced in a new factory, also to the paper produced in a factory whose production capacity has been enlarged and brought into operation during the given period, to the extent such production of paper was attributable to the enlarged capacity. [Discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Wood Papers Ltd., 1990 (47) E.L.T. 500 (SC). Notification No. 130/83-C.E., dated 27-4-1983 provided partial exemption to sugar produced in new units or expansion projects. The exemption notification before us neither by the ordinary meaning of the words used nor by giving them the fullest amplitude covers the old factory which had undergone the changes as effected by the appellants. No reasonable construction of the exemption notification will cover the factory of the type which was producing cement all along before the stipulated period, and in which only the process of grounding of some of the raw materials - wet or dry - is changed, in the manner as in the present case. Before grounding, the raw materials are crushed, and after the processing in the kiln, the raw material 'gypsum' is added. Thereafter, the processing in ball mill and tube mill is done. After passing through the air separator, the finished product is ready. (Refer new Encyclopaedia Brittaniea XV edition page 1076 and 1077].
Someswara Cements And Chemicals Ltd. vs Union Of India on 13 September, 1991
The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Someswara Cements and Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, 1992 (57) E.L.T. 593 (AP), had held that the promissory estoppel cannot operate against the legislature in the exercise of its legislative functions, nor can the Government or any public authority be debarred by the doctrine of promissory estoppel from enforcing a statutory prohibition. In that case, the issue of exemption notification has been taken as a legislative function. The notification in this case is dated 29-4-1987, and was prospective in effect, although it covers the factory coming into operation in the past. As in Jan. 1982/March, 1986, no one could represent that the exemption as provided by Notification No. 124/87-C.E. will be issued in April, 1987. The notification as worded does not otherwise reflect any retrospective representation being made by the Government for having been established a factory in the past. It only provides exemption to the cement which is manufactured in a factory which has been established during the given period.
Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise on 14 August, 1989
In this view of the matter the appellants reliance on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Tata Oil Mills Company Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1989 (43) E.L.T. 183 (SC) is misplaced.
Andhra Cement Co. Ltd. And Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 22 January, 1990
In the case of Andhra Cement Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, 1990 (33) STL 25 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court had noted that "the units which have made substantial expansion or modernisation of the existing units are also entitled to the relief provided the same is done through a new factory". In the present case, there is no new factory. The High Court had ruled that starting of new kiln is not a necessary pre-condition for getting the benefit of production by the new unit. In the case before us, we have considered the totality of the circumstances and have not gone only by the starting of the kilns.
Indian Organic Chemicals Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 7 March, 1986
Cost of civil works (refer Indian Barytes and Chemicals Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1990 (50) E.L.T. 196 (Tribunal), expenses for accessories, electric installations, erection etc.
Hansraj Gordhandas vs H. H. Dave, Assistant Collector Of ... on 27 September, 1968
16. The appellants had referred to certain Government Resolutions regarding establishment of new cement units, expansion of existing units, fixation of ex-works retention prices, switching over to the dry process, from the wet process, etc. Various incentives had been announced by the Ministry of Industry to the new units. None of these establish that the appellants factory was a new factory for purpose of Notification No. 124/-87-C.E. Further these pronouncements, in the light of an unambiguous expression "factory which has commenced production during the period commencing on the 1st day of Jan., 1982 and ending with the 31st day of March, 1986" could not form the basis for increasing or decreasing the tax burden on the tax payers. As observed by the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Hansraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave, 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 350) (SC), a notification has to be interpreted in the light of the words employed by it, and not on any other basis.
Bakul Oil Industries & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 11 November, 1986
In the case of Shri Bakul Oil Industries v. State of Gujarat, 1987 (27) E.L.T. 572 (SC), the Supreme Court had held that the Government was under no obligation to grant exemption, and that the granting of tax exemption was only by way of a concession. They had further held that in order to claim the benefit of promissory estoppel, the appellants must establish that (i) a representation was made to grant the exemption for a particular period to a new industry established in view of the representation held out by the Government and (2) the appellants had established the new industry acting upon the representation made by the Government.