Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)Section 2 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Deputy Commissioner Of Sales Tax ... vs Thomas Stephen & Co . Ltd. Quilon on 14 March, 1988
6. The decision of this Court in Deputy Commissioner of
Sales Tax, Board of Revenue v. Thomas Stephen & Co. Ltd.,
relied upon by Sri Ganguly, does not really advance the
appellant's case. The observations therein to the effect
that "consumption must be in the manufacture of raw material
or of other component which go into the making of end-
product" were made to emphasise the distinction between the
"fuel" used for the kiln to impart the heat-treatment to
ceramics and what actually went into the manufacture of such
ceramics. The observations, correctly apprehended, do not
lend themselves to the understanding that for something to
qualify itself as "Raw-Material" it must necessarily and in
all cases go into, and be found, in the end-product.
Seshasayee Paper And Boards Ltd., Erode vs Appellate Collector Of Customs And ... on 1 September, 1983
But, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) set-aside
the order of the Assistant Collector and remitted the matter
to Assistant Collector for a readjudication. The
respondent-manufacturer challenged this order before the
Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the contention of the Respond-
ent-Manufacturer, set-aside the order of the Collector
(Appeals) and restored the order of the Assistant Collector.
The Tribunal adopted the reasoning in its earlier decision
in Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. v. Collector of Central
Excise, [1985] 22
328
ELT 163 in which the Tribunal had held:
The Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963
Section 3 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Collector Of Central Exise, ... vs Eastend Paper Industries Ltd. & Anr on 29 August, 1989
7. We also find no substance in the contention of Sri
Ganguly that the process in which the Sodium Sulphate was
used, was anterior to and at one stage removed from the
actual manufacture of paper. Sri Sorabjee's answer to this
contention is, in our view, appropriate. That apart the
following observations in Collector of Central Excise v.
Eastend Paper Industries Ltd., cited by Sri Ganguly himself
is a complete answer:
J.K. Cotton Spinning And Weaving Mills ... vs Sales Tax Officer And Anr. on 27 April, 1964
In J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co.
Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, [1965] 16 STC 563
SC, this Court while construing the expression
'in the manufacture or processing of goods for
sale' in the context of Sales Tax Law, though
the concept is different under the Excise Law,
has held that manufacture of goods should
normally encompass the entire
329
process carried on by the dealer of convert-
ing raw materials into finished goods ..... "
Collector Of Central Excise vs Ballarpur Industries Ltd. on 16 May, 1983
(p. 275)
Sri Sorabjee submitted that the Tribunal had consistent-
ly taken this view in several cases and that the department
not having carried those matters up in appeal must be held
to have accepted the correctness of that view. As instances
in point, Learned Counsel referred to two decisions, in
Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur v. Ballarpur Industries
Ltd., Chandrapur, [1983] ELT 1263 and in Collector of Cen-
tral Excise, Bhubaneswar v. Titaghur Paper Mills, [1985] 21
ELT 901.
1