Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.74 seconds)Rallis India Ltd vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 November, 1998
8. After considering the submissions were made by both the sides, we find that the essential question required to be decided in the present appeal is as to whether HCL, on which the appellant has taken the credit, is used in the manufacture of Phosphoryl 'A' and Phosphoryl 'B'; that whether Phosphoryl 'A & B' are final product; that whether mother liquor emerging in between is a by-product and whether the provisions of Rule 57CC would apply even if one of the two final products emerging is by-product. It is seen that the appellant in their own case before Supreme Court reported as Rallis India Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu (the case related to Sales Tax) had taken a stand that gelatin is a protein obtained from collagen which originates from the animal kingdom mainly from skin and bones under suitable pressure. The expert's opinion placed on record by the appellant, in that case, are to the effect that gelatin is obtained by boiling skin, ligaments, tender bones etc. with water under pressure. It was the appellant's case that gelatin has no chemical formula and, as such, would not come under the generic of chemicals. The above stand of the appellant was accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As such, it is seen that even according to the appellant, HCL is not a necessary and fundamental input for the manufacture of gelatin, which can be obtained even without the use of the same. This leads to the evident position that HCL is used for extracting the inorganic part of the bones, which are further converted into Phosphoryl 'A' & 'B'. As such, it has to be held that HCL is used in the manufacture of Phosphoryl 'A' & 'B' irrespective of emergence of mother liquor in between.
Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Bombay ... vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ... on 18 February, 1992
9. The said Phosphoryl 'A' & 'B' are excisable products classifiable under Chapter 23 of the Act. It is not the appellants claim that the said products are by-product. Admittedly, the same are consciously manufactured products. They are arising regularly and continuously, along with the manufacture of gelatin and are being regularly sold by the appellant. Their emergence has to be treated as a result of intended manufacture and not as unwanted product. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax Bombay v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. has observed that where a subsidiary product is turned out regularly and continuously in the course of a manufacturing business and is also sold regularly from time to time, an intention can be attributed to the manufacturer to manufacture and sell not merely the main items manufactured but also the subsidiary products. As such, it has to be held that Phosphoryl "A' & 'B' are the intentionally manufactured products. Further, even the mother liquor which emerges during the course of processing of bones with HCL and further used in the manufacture of Phosphoryl 'A' & 'B' cannot be extended the benefit, as we have already observed that the entire process from start to end has to be examined, in which case undoubtedly HCL has to be held as having been used in the manufacture of Phosphoryl 'A' & 'B'.
M/S Jaiprakash Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 22 November, 2002
10. As regards the issue as to whether the provisions of Rule 57CC would apply to an exempted by product or not. We find that the Referral Bench has taken note of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Rama Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh 2004 (178) ELT 720 (Tri.-Del) laying that there is no requirement to pay 8% of the selling price of the exempted by products under erstwhile Rule 57CC (identical to Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002).
Aarti Drugs Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Exicse, Mumbai ... on 1 March, 2001
Further in the case of Aarti Drugs Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III , it was held that inasmuch as, mother liquor emerging in process of manufacture of methyl nitro imidazole is by-product, provisions of Rule 57CC will not apply.
Binani Zinc Ltd. And Ors. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Cochin ... on 30 October, 2001
11. As against the above, the other line of thought is contained in the Tribunal decision in the case of Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur and in the case of Binani Zinc Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin . The ratio of these two decisions is that the provisions of Rule 57CC are applicable irrespective of the nature of the final product i.e. whether intended final product or a by-product or a subsidiary product.
Narmada Gelatines Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 17 January, 2005
The said decision stands subsequently followed by the Tribunal in the case of Narmada Gelatines Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal .
M/S. Indian Iron And Steel Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Bolpur on 23 January, 2001
11. As against the above, the other line of thought is contained in the Tribunal decision in the case of Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur and in the case of Binani Zinc Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin . The ratio of these two decisions is that the provisions of Rule 57CC are applicable irrespective of the nature of the final product i.e. whether intended final product or a by-product or a subsidiary product.
1