Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.30 seconds)
Awn Agro P Ltd vs Ahmedabad-Iii on 25 August, 2023 cites

The Commissioner Of Customs & Central ... vs M/S. Nikhil Refineries Ltd on 18 July, 2011

(d) the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court affirming the decision of the Tribunal in A.G. Fats (supra) by dismissing the civil appeal will not form a binding precedent in view of similar dismissal of civil appeal against a contrary decision in Priyanka Refineries (supra). Thus, there exist two decisions of co- equal Benches on the same Issue. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal, now seized of the matter, should take a view which correctly reflects the legal position. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - AIR 2004 CAL 1.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 10 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Cce vs Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. on 25 March, 1998

11. The thrust of the arguments by the Revenue is that when a product is capable of being sold for a significant consideration the same cannot be considered as waste. We are unable to accept such summary presumption. Admittedly, in chemical and metallurgical industry when the raw materials are processed with an intended purpose of manufacturing certain final products by a chemical reaction, refining, melting etc. multiple products will result. These products either emerged in the final stage or any of the intermediating stages also. The point for consideration is whether these are to be considered as manufactured goods for excise levy based on the statutory definition for manufacture or should be considered as manufactured goods based on the likely value they may command while selling. We are clear that the value that a product may or may not fetch cannot be a determinative factor to decide whether the same is a manufactured final product/by product or a waste/refuse arising during the course of manufacture of final products. This much is clear from the ratio of the Apex court decision in Indian Aluminium Co. (supra). While no general guidelines can be laid down to decide when a product will be treated as a waste or a by product, in the present set of facts the products under consideration are clearly not in the nature of by products emerging during the course of manufacture. The process of manufacturing refined vegetable oil is essentially by removing the unwanted materials that were present in the crude vegetable oil so that a refined vegetable oil can be 6 E/10503-10504/2023-DB obtained. In this process of refining, the unwanted materials are removed. Hence, we are of the considered view that the removal of unwanted materials resulting in products like gums, waxes and fatty acid with odour cannot be called as a process of manufacture of these gums, waxes and fatty acid with odour. The process of manufacture is for refined rice bran oil. As such, we note that these Incidental products are nothing but waste arising during course of refining of rice bran oil and applying the ratio of Apex court, as discussed above, these cannot be considered as manufactured excisable goods. Noting that the reference is to decide whether these are to be treated as waste for the purpose of exemption Notification 89/95-CE we note though the excisability of the product itself is seriously in dispute as per the opinion expressed by us, as above, these cannot be considered as anything other than waste and as such will be covered by the exemption Notification No. 89/95-CE. This has been pleaded as a alternate argument by the appellant/assessee also.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 3 - Cited by 29 - Full Document

Collector Of Central Excise, Patna vs M/S Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd on 26 February, 2004

and CCE, Patna vs. Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd.. - 2004 (165) E.L.T. 386 (S.C.), the Apex court held that the dross and skimming arising during the course of manufacture of metal cannot be subjected to excise levy only because it may have some saleable value, observing that the term "manufacture implies a change; every change, however, is not a manufacture". Every change of an article may be the result of treatment, labour and manipulation. The manufacture would Imply something more. There must be a transformation; a new and different article must emerge having a descriptive name, character or use (Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Ltd. - AIR 63 SC 791). The Apex court categorically held that dross do not answers the description of "waste and scrap".
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 43 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document
1