Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.98 seconds)The Central Excise Act, 1944
Sandoz India Limited vs Union Of India And Others on 1 January, 1800
1) markfed has relied on the ratio of Sandoz India Ltd. Vs U.O.I. and Others - 1980 (6) ELT 696. In the case of Sandoz, firstly Foron liquid was obtained by conversion from the solid stage and secondly on the basis of material that was available in the case, the Court came to a conclusion that it was not possible to hold the process amounting to manufacture. In may view, the process considered in Sandoz was not similar to the one involved in manufacture of formulation grade pesticide as it is not a case of conversion from solid state to liquid state and therefore, the ratio of Sandoz in not applicable to the case at hand.
Union Of India & Ors. Etc vs J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. Etc on 9 December, 1997
ii) U.O.I. Vs. J.g. Glass Industries Ltd. - 2002-Taxindiaonline-112-SC-CX :
M/S. Silver Laminates Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... on 27 April, 2001
iv) Moti Laminates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Ahmedabad - 2002-TaxindiaOnline-24-SC-CX
'Manufacture' or 'Production' Means bringing out a new commodity which must be useable, moveable, saleable and marketable. The obvious rationale for levying excise duty linking it with production or manufacture is that the goods so produced must be a distinct commodity known as such in common parlance or to the commercial community for purposes of buying and selling.
Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950
S. Shanmugavel Nadar vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 18 September, 2002
"Reliance was placed upon the authority of of this court in the case of S. Shanmugavel Nagar Vs. State of T.N and Another reported in 2002 (8) SCC 361. It was submitted that all the civil appeals had been dismissed by non-speaking orders. It was submitted that it is open to this Court to consider whether or not the impugned decisions of the Tribunal are correct. There can be no dispute, with this proposition. We have, therefore, heard the learned counsel at length."
The Finance Act, 1996
Coca-Cola Export Corporation vs S.C. Tewari, Ito, Central Circle-I, New ... on 18 December, 1984
In sun Export Corporation Vs. C.C., Bombay, 2002-Taxindiaonline-118-SC-CX, decided earlier on 07.07.1997 by a Bench of Three Judges of the Apex Court, it was also held in paragraph 13 as follows : -
Deputy Commissioner Of Sales Tax (Law) vs I.C.I. (P.) Ltd. on 28 November, 1980
2) Markfed (supra) also referred to the ratio of the Apex court decision in the case of Dy. Commissioner Sales Tax Vs. P.I.O food Packers, 2002-Taxindiaonline-67-SC-CT. In the said case, the Apex Court has held that though nature and extent of processing may vary from one case to another, yet it is only when the change, or a series of changes take the commodity to the point where commercially it is recognized as a new and distinct article that manufacture can be said to have taken place. While applying this ratio to the case at hand, the Tribunal concluded in Markfed that the processing of the concentrated basis pesticidal chemical resulted only in their dilution rendering them suitable for use either directly or after addition of water and formulations retained the name of the basis chemicals. As such, it appears that in Markfed, the Tribunal incorrectly applied the ratio of the Apex Court decision to the case at hand by erroneously treating the process of making the formulation grade pesticide to be a case of mere dilution and also ignoring that the processing resulted in a product which became marketable and was commercially sold as a new and distinct commodity which the buyers could directly use whereas the technical grade pesticides could not be so marketed and used.