Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.22 seconds)
M/S. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, New Delhi on 12 March, 2015 cites

Commissioner Of Central Excise-I,New ... vs M/S S.R. Tissues Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 5 August, 2005

On the facts of the present case, we have first, therefore, to arrive at whether there is “manufacture” at all and only subsequently does the question arise as to if this is so, what is the valuation of the processed goods and whether duty is payable upon them. We have found on facts that for the purposes of the proviso to Rule 57F(ii), the inputs that were not ultimately used in the final product but were removed from the factory for home consumption remain the same despite ED coating and consequent value addition. We follow the law laid down in S.R. Tissues Pvt. Ltd.'s case and state that on account of mere value addition without more it would be hazardous to say that manufacture has taken place, when in fact, it has not. It is clear, therefore, that the inputs procured by the appellants in the present case, continue to be the same inputs even after ED coating and that Rule 57F(ii) proviso would therefore apply when such inputs are removed from the factory for home consumption, the duty of excise payable being the amount of credit that has been availed in respect of such inputs under Rule 57A.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 37 - Full Document

Siddhartha Tubes Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 16 March, 2000

First, he referred us to 'Sidhartha Tubes Limited v. Collector of Central Excise' [2000 (10) SCC 194]. Since this judgment was also the only judgment relied upon by CEGAT in the impugned order, it is a little important to understand what exactly was held therein. In this case, the appellant manufactured mild steel pipes and tubes. At this stage, the product was known as “black pipe”. Part of the production of the black pipe was then taken to a separate shed in the appellant's factory premises and galvanised. On facts in that case, the appellants had C.A. NO. 8190 OF 2003 9 themselves in their classification list separately declared black pipes and galvanised pipes as their products. In such a situation, this Court held that while the process of galvanisation by itself may not amount to manufacture, yet since it added to the intrinsic value of the product declared by the appellants themselves separately as galvanised pipes, the value of galvanised pipes would include the element of the cost of galvanisation.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 17 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Decorative Liminates (India) Pvt. Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, Bangalore on 31 July, 1996

In the case of Decorative Laminates (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 186, this Court held that the process of application of phenol resin on duty paid plywood under 100% heat amounts to manufacture and in that connection observed that value addition and separate use are also relevant factors which the Courts should consider in deciding the applicability of Section 2(f) of the Act. Therefore, value addition based on price difference only without any change in the name, character or end-use is a dangerous criteria to be applied in judging what constitutes “manufacture”. Lastly, the end-use in both the entries 4803 & 4818.90 is the same, namely, for sanitary or household purposes. In the circumstances, value addition criteria as applied by the Commissioner is erroneous.” Shri Guru Krishna Kumar, learned senior counsel, also cited two other decisions in support of the proposition that, in fact, manufacture had taken place on the facts of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 12 - K T Thomas - Full Document
1   2 Next