Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)Section 2 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Dunlop India Ltd vs Union Of India And Ors on 6 October, 1975
One cannot necessarily, infer from the separate categorisation that recording sound on duty paid tapes is "manufacture"; (iv) separate categorisation cannot also imply separate acts of manufacture in recording sound on duty paid tapes and as many times as it is recorded from the ratio of the decisions in 1983 E.L.T. 1566 (Dunlop v. Union of India), AIR 1971 S.C. 2335 (Union of India v. Ramlal Mansukhrai), 1983 E.L.T. 735 (Hyderabad Asbestos v. Union of India) etc. It is true, in the light of the ratio of the said decisions, that the legislative intent to treat the goods clearly and unambiguously described in the Schedule as manufactures is manifest and accordingly there cannot be a dispute on the issue of "manufacture" as understood in law in regard to them. 7 hat, however, is not the issue in these Appeals. The ratio of the said decisions may apply in so far as manufacture and clearance of "sound recorded" magnetic or cassette tapes are concerned, since that is how Item 59(3) and (4) read. They do not answer the query if mere recording sound on magnetic or cassette tapes, already levied to duty, is a separate act of manufacture so as to be excisable by itself;
Union Of India vs Hindu Undivided Family Business Known ... on 21 August, 1970
One cannot necessarily, infer from the separate categorisation that recording sound on duty paid tapes is "manufacture"; (iv) separate categorisation cannot also imply separate acts of manufacture in recording sound on duty paid tapes and as many times as it is recorded from the ratio of the decisions in 1983 E.L.T. 1566 (Dunlop v. Union of India), AIR 1971 S.C. 2335 (Union of India v. Ramlal Mansukhrai), 1983 E.L.T. 735 (Hyderabad Asbestos v. Union of India) etc. It is true, in the light of the ratio of the said decisions, that the legislative intent to treat the goods clearly and unambiguously described in the Schedule as manufactures is manifest and accordingly there cannot be a dispute on the issue of "manufacture" as understood in law in regard to them. 7 hat, however, is not the issue in these Appeals. The ratio of the said decisions may apply in so far as manufacture and clearance of "sound recorded" magnetic or cassette tapes are concerned, since that is how Item 59(3) and (4) read. They do not answer the query if mere recording sound on magnetic or cassette tapes, already levied to duty, is a separate act of manufacture so as to be excisable by itself;
C. A. Abraham, Uppoottil, Kottayam vs The Income-Tax Officer, Kottayam And ... on 29 November, 1960
E.R. 499 (H.L.); C.A. Abraham v. ITO, Kottayyam-AIR 1961 S.C. 609 at 612; Commissioner of Income-tax v. Karamchand Premchand Ltd.- AIR 1960 S.C. 1175 at 1182=1960 (3) SCR 727 at 742].
Union Of India vs Delhi Cloth & General Mills on 12 October, 1962
(g) (i) nor can it be said that recording of sound on blank magnetic or cassette tapes is "manufacture", inasmuch as, a new substance-not merely a change in the substance-a transformation resulting in a new and different article having a distinctive name, character and use (all three of them and not merely one of them) had emerged. [AIR 1963 S.C. 791 at 794~Union of India v. Delhi Cloth Mills; AIR 1981 S.C. 1014-Chowgule v. Union of India, (1906) 2 K.B. 352-McNicol v. Pinch and other cases].
Section 3 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products ... vs Union Of India And Others on 1 January, 1800
One cannot necessarily, infer from the separate categorisation that recording sound on duty paid tapes is "manufacture"; (iv) separate categorisation cannot also imply separate acts of manufacture in recording sound on duty paid tapes and as many times as it is recorded from the ratio of the decisions in 1983 E.L.T. 1566 (Dunlop v. Union of India), AIR 1971 S.C. 2335 (Union of India v. Ramlal Mansukhrai), 1983 E.L.T. 735 (Hyderabad Asbestos v. Union of India) etc. It is true, in the light of the ratio of the said decisions, that the legislative intent to treat the goods clearly and unambiguously described in the Schedule as manufactures is manifest and accordingly there cannot be a dispute on the issue of "manufacture" as understood in law in regard to them. 7 hat, however, is not the issue in these Appeals. The ratio of the said decisions may apply in so far as manufacture and clearance of "sound recorded" magnetic or cassette tapes are concerned, since that is how Item 59(3) and (4) read. They do not answer the query if mere recording sound on magnetic or cassette tapes, already levied to duty, is a separate act of manufacture so as to be excisable by itself;
Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Ahmedabad vs Karamchand Premchand Ltd.,Ahmedabad on 28 April, 1960
E.R. 499 (H.L.); C.A. Abraham v. ITO, Kottayyam-AIR 1961 S.C. 609 at 612; Commissioner of Income-tax v. Karamchand Premchand Ltd.- AIR 1960 S.C. 1175 at 1182=1960 (3) SCR 727 at 742].
1