Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.21 seconds)Union Of India & Anr vs Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. & Anr on 6 May, 1997
"11. ... I find that as was rightly contended by the appellants and their learned Counsel, no new product emerged when betel nuts were cut into small pieces and certain other ingredients were added to it and the character and use of the raw material remained the same. The exchange in the raw material i.e. betel nut into betel nut powder/betel nut pieces/supari was not such a transformation to term it manufacture, in view of the characteristics of the raw material remaining the same, even after such processing. Though the goods may find a mention in the tariff, in order to be subjected to levy of excise duty, the goods should have resulted from "manufacture" as was held by the Apex Court in the cases cited supra. It was categorically held by the Constitution Bench of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Anr. v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd., and reiterated in the case of Moti Laminates Pvt. Ltd. (supra) that the tariff schedule by placing the goods in specific and general category does not alter the basic character of leviability and that the duty is attracted not because an article is covered in any of the items or it falls in residuary category but it must further have been produced or manufactured. Thus, I find merit in the argument of the appellants that the fact of the goods figuring in the Tariff or the explanation at Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 21 defining 'betel nut powder" or "supari" is of no consequence, unless the goods emanate/result out of manufacture. Thus, I find that no "Manufacture" had taken place, in the instant case, in accordance with the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the various cases law detailed supra."
1