Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.21 seconds)Mysore Lac And Paint Works Ltd. vs Cce on 19 October, 1989
Therefore, the notification should be read subject to the main provision viz; Rule 57A. Hence, the fact that the heading of the inputs mentioned in notification covers the impugned items does not mean that they are 'inputs' used in relation to the manufacture of final product viz; steel ingots. The notification has to be read subject to the exclusion clause under Rule 57A. He also relied upon the orders of this Tribunal in Shivaji Works Ltd. v. CCE [1991 (50) ELT 15] and Mysore Kirlosker v. CCE [1991 (50) ELT 175].
Section 37 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Customs Tariff Act, 1975 [Entire Act]
The Central Excise Act, 1944
C.C.E. And Ors. vs Shell Paper Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. on 16 November, 1990
9. The arguments advanced by Shri Aggarwal that in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in CCE v. Eastern Paper Industries Ltd. [43 ELT 201] and CCE v. Bal-larpitr Industries [43 ELT 804] explaining the word 'raw material', the respondents are entitled for the modvat credit as the three items fall within the expression raw materials cannot be accepted. It is true that the Supreme Court in the decisions referred to above considered the expression 'raw material' and held that anything that enters into and forms part of manufacturing process or is required to make the article marketable must be deemed to be raw material or containing part of the end product and must be deemed to have been used in completion or manufacture of the end product. The Supreme Court was dealing with the raw material used for the manufacture of end product whereas in the instant case, the three items mentioned, form part of the apparatus and therefore, cannot be considered as raw material for the purpose of manufacturing the end product.
1