Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)Section 2 in Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
C.I.T vs N.C.Budharaja And Co on 7 September, 1993
9. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the three appeals are allowed.
7 We find that the Honble Supreme Court decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. N.C. Budharaja & Co. is not applicable in the facts of present case as the Honble Supreme Court was interpreting the provisions of Income Tax which are not parallel to the provisions of Central Excise Act and Rules.
Commissioner Of Customs & Central ... vs M/S Shakumbari Sugar And Allied Indus. ... on 20 August, 2010
5. I have considered arguments from both sides, the case records as well as the cite case laws. The impugned goods namely, press mud and sludge are classifiable respectively under CET Heading 2303 20 00 and 2303 30 00. Regarding such classification there is no dispute raised by either side. However, against the entries in both these Headings, the duty amounts specified is nil. The Explanation to Section 2(d) is a deeming clause which renders any goods which are capable of being bought and sold for a consideration to be marketable. The cited decision of the Honble Allahabad High Court in the case of Hindalco Industries (supra) is also to this effect. This deeming fiction became necessary to be created in the light of various judgements that merelyb because some goods are sold they cannot be held to be marketable and consequently they cannot be considered to be excisable as excisability implied manufacture and marketability. However, the main definition of excisable goods under Section 2(d) is as under:-
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. Gonda ... vs Union Of India Ministry Of Finance ... on 12 July, 2011
5.1 Regarding demanding duty by invoking the provisions of Rule 6 in respect of bagasse, we find that the issue is now settled by the decision of Honble High Court in the case of Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. (supra).
The Finance Act, 2018
M/S. Indian Potash Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 13 June, 2012
Further, we find that the Tribunal in the case of Indian Potash Ltd. (supra) after taking into consideration the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Shakumbhari Sugar & Allied Industries Ltd., also taken the same view and held as under:-
M/S. The Amaravathi Co-Operative Sugar ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 22 July, 2008
having been used at that stage. Accordingly, we find merit in the contention of the appellant. The impugned order is set aside. The appeal and station applications are allowed.
6.2 In respect of press mud, we find that now the issue is settled by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Amaravathi Co-Operative Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the applicant where the Tribunal after taking into consideration the decision of Rallies India Ltd. vs. Union of India 2009 (233) ELT 301 (Bom.) and other decisions held that the demand of 5%/10% on press mud, which are in the nature waste, is not sustainable and held as under:-.
Rallis India Limited vs The Union Of India on 16 December, 2008
In the cited decision in Rallies India (supra), the Honble Bombay High Court, reversing the earlier decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, has held that when common inputs are used in manufacture of dutiable and exempted products, the liability to pay the amount of 8% as it was applicable at the relevant time would arise only for final products and not for waste.
1