Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.31 seconds)Union Of India And Ors vs Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. And Anr on 19 April, 1995
In the case of Union of India v. Indian Aluminium Company Ltd. 1995 (77) E.L.T. 268 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 14 of their decision had observed as under :
Thungabhadra Steel Products Ltd. vs Supdt. Of Central Excise on 25 January, 1991
In the case of Thungabhadra Steel Products Ltd. v. Superintendent of Central Excise 1991 (56) E.L.T. 340 (Kar.), the appellants had given the full description of each item manufactured/warehoused by them. They had furnished all the details required in the proforma under Rule 57-1. Further the matter related to the credit wrongly availed of under sub-rule (1) of Rule 57-1. When the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court said that 'Rule 57-1 as it stood before the amendment with effect from 6-10-1988 should receive the same interpretation as it should receive after amendment, they were referring only to sub-rule (1) as no amendment has been made in sub-rule (2) of Rule 57-1.
Bajaj Auto Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 12 October, 1994
In the Bajaj Auto's case reported in 1995 (75) E.L.T. 382 the distinction between 57-1(1) and 57-1(2) was not brought to the notice of the Bench and the time bar aspect has been considered only with reference to Rule 57-1(1), whereas in our opinion, the present case is covered by Rule 57-1(2) (about which there is no finding in the Bjaj Auto's case).
Rajasthan Worsted Spinning Mills vs Collector Of Central Excise on 30 November, 1989
In support of his various contentions, the learned DR relied upon the Tribunal's decision in the cases of (1) Rajasthan Worsted Spinning Mills v. Collector of Central Excise 1990 (47) E.L.T. 483 (Tribunal) (2) Collector of Central Excise v. Jagdamba Electronics 1993 (68) E.L.T. 144 (Tribunal) and (3) Collector of Central Excise v. Maradia Steel Pvt. Ltd. 1992 (59) E.L.T. 59 (Tribunal).
State Of Haryana vs Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd on 20 November, 1987
8. Under Rule 57A, the credit of the specified duty is allowable if the duty paid inputs are used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product. The expression used in the rule is "used in or in relation to the manufacture" of the final product. The expression is not 'intended for use' (refer Supreme Court decision in the case of State of Haryana v. Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. (AIR 1988 SC 342). Depending upon the requirement for the manufacture of their final product, portions from inputs were cut. The whole of the input was not used. After meeting out their requirement, the rest/part of the inputs (not used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product) were removed from their factory for outside consumption. The appellants had submitted that such goods removed from their factory for home consumption were 'waste' for the purposes of sub-rule (4) of Rule 57F of the Rules. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 57F provided that any waste arising from the processing of inputs in respect of which credit had been taken, may be removed on payment of duty as if such waste is manufactured in the factory. Scrap is normally understood as something which is not serviceable. Scrap according to dictionary means a small piece cut or broken from something, fragment. In commercial parlance, 'scrap' is normally understood as waste.
Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd vs C.C.E on 16 December, 1994
In the case of Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. v. CCE (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that a sub-standard article is not scrap as understood in commercial parlance or trade circle. Under these circumstances, could it be said that the part of the input which is not useable by the appellants (or is not used by them) for the manufacture of their final product, but is disposed of to outside buyers and is useable by them as such without re-melting, for the purpose of Rule 57A, has been used in or in relation to the manufacture of their final product.
Collector Of Central Excise vs Bharat Containers Pvt. Ltd. on 7 December, 1989
In the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Bharat Containers Pvt. Ltd. 1990 (48) E.L.T. 520, the matter related to the filing of the vague declaration with a description 'sundry inputs. The Tribunal had observed that when the credit has been taken wrongly or it is in excess of the eligibility, it is a case of erroneous credit which can be recovered by a demand.
Torrent Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of Incia on 20 October, 1989
2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Switch boards, Panels and parts thereof. They brought duty paid cold rolled (CR) iron and steel sheets, aluminium bars and sections, Copper bars and rods etc., and availed Modvat credit of the Central Excise duty paid thereon by the suppliers. After cutting the required portion for the manufacture of their finished goods, the cut sheets and metal ends, etc. were sorted out and sold to outside parties on payment of Central Excise duty as applicable to waste and scrap of the respective metals. It was alleged in the show cause notice dated 27-2-1991 that during the period from 1-3-1986 to 31-12-1990, these goods cleared under the description of waste and scrap attracted product rate of Central Excise duty. The Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-I who adjudicated the matter, came to a finding that the goods cleared under the description of waste and scrap, had not gone for the purposes of remelting and had been used as the product. On limitation, he relied upon the Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Torrent Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India -1991 (55) E.L.T. 25 (Guj.). After giving due allowance to the damaged sheets which were packing materials, he demanded Central Excise duty of Rs. 2,59,655.54 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-.