Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.16 seconds)
Hindustan Copper Ltd. vs C.C.E. on 20 April, 2006 cites

Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. vs Cce on 10 January, 2005

6. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the very issue as to whether a part of the input is being used in the manufacture of a by-product came up for consideration before the Apex Court in an identical case [Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. v. C.C.E. 1988 (38) ELT 794 (SC)]. and the Supreme Court ruled that no portion of the input can be held to have been used in the manufacture of a by -product. Specific reliance is being placed on the following observations in that judgment:
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 1 - Cited by 29 - Full Document

Birla Copper vs Cce on 4 October, 2004

A by-product does not enter the equation between input and final product. This position remains settled by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. The ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court applies to the present case also. No part of the input (copper concentrate) can be taken as going into the production of any final product other than copper cathode. It is also noted that in an identical case [Birla Copper v. C.C.E., Vadodara 2004 (117) ECR 1103] in relation to the same namely, by-product, sulphuric acid, emerging in the manufacture of copper cathode, this Tribunal held that demand of 8% is not sustainable even when supply of sulphuric acid is under Chapter X procedure.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Binani Zinc Ltd. vs C.C.E. on 13 August, 1998

7. As against the above submission of the learned Counsel, the learned SDR has contended that this is a case where specified product namely, sulphuric acid is being cleared without payment of duty and since it is being produced from modvated input, lower authorities were right in invoking Rule 57CC and in demanding payment at the rate of 8%. He has relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Binani Zinc Ltd. v. C.C.E., Cochin and in Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Bolpur in support of his contention.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 0 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

M/S. Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. vs Cce, Bolpur on 4 May, 2001

7. As against the above submission of the learned Counsel, the learned SDR has contended that this is a case where specified product namely, sulphuric acid is being cleared without payment of duty and since it is being produced from modvated input, lower authorities were right in invoking Rule 57CC and in demanding payment at the rate of 8%. He has relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Binani Zinc Ltd. v. C.C.E., Cochin and in Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Bolpur in support of his contention.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta Cites 2 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1