Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.19 seconds)
Ahmed Comerbhoy Mills vs Union Of India And Another on 8 January, 1986 cites

Indian Vegetable Products Limited vs Union Of India And Others on 21 June, 1985

8. The facts of the present case are similar to the facts in the case of Indian Vegetable Products v. Union of India 1985 (22) ELT 406. It is contended by Mr. Bharucha, learned advocate for the petitioners (appellants), that there is no admission made by the petitioners in the petition that vegetable tallow is vegetable product falling under tariff item 13. We have, however, gone through the petition. In the petition the petitioners have stated in terms that they produce vegetable tallow which is a vegetable product. We do not find any contention in the petition to the effect that vegetable tallow should be classified under tariff item 12. Even in the proceedings before the respondents the petitioners, at no stage, contended that vegetable tallow was not vegetable product falling under tariff item 13 but was vegetable non-essential oil falling under tariff item 12. At the stage of the appeal the petitioners cannot be allowed to raise this contention for the first time especially when there is no material on record to decide this classification dispute. It was, therefore, submitted by Mr. Bharucha that the matter should be remanded by us before the learned single Judge in order to determine this question. We, however, fail to see on what basis the learned single Judge can also decide this question since there is no material on record to determine whether the product manufactured by the petitioners falls under tariff item 12 or 13.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Tata Oil Mills Company Ltd. vs Union Of India And Others on 1 January, 1800

9. The petitioners sought to rely upon a decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others reported in 1981 ELT 189. The petitioners in that case had converted vegetable non-essential oil into tallow. The tallow had been used in the manufacture of soap. The petitioners in that case had originally represented to the excise authorities that this tallow fell under tariff item 13 of the Central excise tariff and by reason of notification No. CER-8(3)/56 dated 14th January, 1956 it was exempt from duty. In that case, however, in reply to the show cause notice issued by the respondents, the petitioners had contended that they had wrongly classified tallow under tariff item 13. They had contended that tallow was not fit for human consumption and hence it could not be classified under tariff item 13. The contention of the petitioners was negatived by the excise authorities. Before the learned single Judge the question was whether the tallow in question was a vegetable product falling under item 13 of the Central excise tariff. It was also contended before the learned single Judge that vegetable tallow in question did not attract the second proviso to the exemption notification under tariff item 12. The learned Judge came to a conclusion that vegetable tallow was not a vegetable product falling under item 13. In that case the question of classification was directly in issue between the parties, both in the proceedings before the Collectorate of Central Excise as well as in this Court. In the present case, however, this question has not been raised either in the proceedings before the Collectorate of Central Excise or in the petition in this Court. In our view it would not be proper to permit the petitioners to raise this issue at the appellate stage when there is no material on record on the basis of which this question can be raised or decided.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1