Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.43 seconds)Section 2 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax (Law) ... vs Pio Food Packers on 9 May, 1980
23. There are no two opinions about the proposition of law laid down by the apex court in the above referred cases. Applying the same in the instant petitions it is clear that the process through which 'Pan Masala' and other products of like nature are prepared brings into existence a new substance known as 'Pan Masala' etc. and it is not that it produces only some change in a substance. As stated above before this process Betel nuts, Lime, Catechu, Cardamom, Menthol etc. remain different substances but as a result of that process it brings into existence a new substance known as 'Pan Masala' etc. Thus, the transformation does take place and a new and different article does emerge having a distinctive name and character.
Adltya Mills Ltd vs Union Of India on 29 August, 1988
(See Aditya Mills Ltd. v. Union of India -1988 U.P.T.C. 1386)
S.P.S. Jayaram & Co. vs Assistant Collector Of Central Excise ... on 25 June, 1986
In the instant case also 'Pan Masala' and other products of like nature are manufactured from betel nuts and other components but as a result of the process betel nuts and other components are transformed into 'Pan Masala' and other products of like nature and the components lose not only its identity but also its commercial name, character and use, therefore, the ratio laid down in aforesaid case is fully applicable to the instant case.
Brooke Bond India Ltd. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 24 September, 1982
Similarly in Brooke Bond India Ltd. case (supra) it has been held that Coffee chickory blend is neither 'food product' nor 'food preparations', therefore, it will not be exempt from duty under Notification No. 55/75.
Section 35 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Ashok Griha Udyog Kendra Pvt. Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise And Customs on 5 March, 1982
In Ashok Griha Udyog Kendra Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Kanpur -1982 (10) E.L.T 309 (All), the Division Bench of this Court held that if different spices are mixed in certain proportion and they are powdered, then the original property of the particular ingredient is lost and is mixed with the properties of the other ingredients with the result that a new and a different article having a distinct name, character or use emerges. Such masalas would be covered by Tariff Item 68. Thus, the ratio laid down in this case fully applies to the facts of instant petitions, as the ratio was laid down on the facts that different spices were mixed in certain proportion and they were powdered and as a result of the same different commodities came into existence known as Garam Masala, Dal Masala, Ghana Masala etc.
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Union Of India vs Delhi Cloth & General Mills on 12 October, 1962
22. Learned senior counsel for petitioners, giving references of various decisions of apex court particularly in the case of Union of India v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd., A.I.R. 1963 SC 791 and Dy. Commissioner Sales Tax (Law) v. Pio Food Packers, 1980 (6) E.L.T. 343 contended that the word 'manufacture' used as a verb is generally understood to mean as 'bringing into existence a new substance' and does not mean merely 'to produce some change in a substance' however minor its consequential change may be. It is submitted that this distinction is well brought about in a passage quoted in Permanent Edition of Words and Phrases from an American Judgment : The Passage runs thus :
1