Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.69 seconds)Modi Carpets Limited And Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 16 April, 1980
7. A similar question arose before the Delhi High Court in the case of Modi Carpets Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in 1980 E.L.T. 320. That case directly related to the sliver used in the manufacture of woollen tops. Three contentions were advanced before the learned Judges. The first contention was that this Tariff Item 43 was ultra vires Section 3 of the Act. The second contention was that the Parliament was not competent under Entry 84 of List I of the VII Schedule to the Constitution of India to amend the Tariff Item 43 so as to include therein an item which is not "goods" and which is not "manufactured". The third contention was that before duty of excise can be charged and collected, there must be removal of the product within the meaning of Rules 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It was contended that if the product was not removed from the factory and was obtained only at an intermediatry stage within a process in the factory there was no removal and there could be no liability for the payment of the Excise duty.
Union Carbide India Limited vs Union Of India And Ors on 4 April, 1986
In this connection, I must refer to a recent Judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Union Carbide India Ltd. v. Union of India . That was a case dealing with the manufacture of aluminium cansas as an intermediate product and the same was not marketed at all. It is on that basis the Supreme Court said that they were not "goods" within the meaning of the Act.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Gujarat Finance Act, 1932
Section 3 in The Finance Act, 2018 [Entire Act]
1