Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.25 seconds)
Swadeshi Polytex Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise on 23 November, 1989 cites

Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. And Another vs A.K. Bandyopadhyay And Others on 1 January, 1800

Ltd. & Anr. v. A.K. Bandyopadhyay & Ors., [1980] ELT 146. The question that the tribunal had to decide was whether the set off of duty paid on inputs was admissible only if the finished excisable goods manufactured therefrom, was not exempted from duty.The process of manufacture and the out- come of ethynol are not in dispute. The tribunal was of the view that the judgment of the Bombay High Court had held that dross skimmings thrown off in the process of manufac- ture and aluminium sheets were not end products or finished or by-products merely because such refuge might fetch some price in the market. The High Court had further held that proviso to sub-rule 56-A will have no application and the skimmings cannot be said to be finished excisable goods. These were not exempted from the whole of duty of excise or chargeable to nil rate of duty whereas the sub-rule pre- scribed that the credit is admissible if the material is used in the manufacture of finished goods which are exempt from duty or are chargeable to nil rate of duty. The Tribu- nal was of the opinion that the factual background'of the case before the Bombay High court was different and there- fore, it was of the opinion that the said decision was not applicable in the instant case.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 33 - Full Document
1