Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.52 seconds)
Desh Rolling Mills vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 3 July, 2000 cites

Collector Of Central Excise, Baroda vs United Phosphorus Ltd on 7 April, 2000

The ld. Advocate also submitted that intermediate goods coming into existence during the process of manufacture would not be subject to duty unless they satisfy the test of marketability as held by the Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Baroda v. United Phosphorus Ltd., 2000 (38) RLT 239 (SC); that it has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Lohia Sheet Products v. CCE, Ghaziabad - 1999 (35) RLT 453, that untrimmed cover sheets are not liable to duty as no evidence of their marketability had been produced by the Department. The ld. Counsel, therefore, contended that the products manufactured by the Appellants are not liable to excise duty, being not marketable. Finally, the ld. Advocate referred to the clarification given by the Principal Collector wherein it was clarified that product job rolled under Rule 57F(3), Notification No. 214/86 are not to be charged to excise duty in the hands of Job worker provided proper procedure is adopted as provided in the Central Excise Rules/relevant Notification.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 14 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Jhunjhunwala Rolling Mills And Engg. ... vs C.C.E. on 9 October, 1996

4. In reply the ld. Advocate submitted that the challan, for sending the goods under Rule 57F(2) and under Notification No. 214/86 is same; that Notification No. 178/88, which prescribed Central Excise duty @ Rs. 1,4000 per tonne in respect of sheets and circle in untrimmed conditions, was rescinded by Notification No. 64/94 dated 01.03.1994. He finally mentioned that once the challan under which the raw-material was received was duly authenticated by the Central Excise Department, the appellants have not to look for any other thing; that the Tribunal has clearly held in Aggarwal Rolling Mills case that it is for the supplier to comply and the Department to verify whether the conditions mentioned in para 2 of Notification No. 214/86 had been duly fulfilled; that no appeal has been filed by the Department on this aspect and order has become final and is to be implemented.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 0 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Lohia Sheets Products vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 30 July, 1999

The ld. Advocate also submitted that intermediate goods coming into existence during the process of manufacture would not be subject to duty unless they satisfy the test of marketability as held by the Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Baroda v. United Phosphorus Ltd., 2000 (38) RLT 239 (SC); that it has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Lohia Sheet Products v. CCE, Ghaziabad - 1999 (35) RLT 453, that untrimmed cover sheets are not liable to duty as no evidence of their marketability had been produced by the Department. The ld. Counsel, therefore, contended that the products manufactured by the Appellants are not liable to excise duty, being not marketable. Finally, the ld. Advocate referred to the clarification given by the Principal Collector wherein it was clarified that product job rolled under Rule 57F(3), Notification No. 214/86 are not to be charged to excise duty in the hands of Job worker provided proper procedure is adopted as provided in the Central Excise Rules/relevant Notification.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1