Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)
Manoj Kumar Sharma vs New Delhi on 1 August, 2019 cites

Ujagar Prints Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 4 November, 1988

and Ujagar Prints Vs. U.O.I. - 1988 (38) ELT 535 (S.C.), according to which the activity or process in order to amount to "manufacture" must lead to emergence of a new commercial product, different from the one with which the process 7 C/53219-53220/2018 started. In other words, it should be an article with different name, character and use. Thus, a process which simply changes the form or size of the same article or substance would not ordinarily amount to manufacture and no excise duty would be payable unless in a particular case by Section Note or Chapter Note of the Tariff or by wording of the relevant heading or sub-heading the said process has been specified as amounting to manufacture. But an apparently similar process in another case may give rise to emergence of a commercially new and different product in which case the process would amount to manufacture. It is thus not the nature of the process or activity which determines the issue but the end result of that process or activity i.e., whether or not a new and different commercial product comes into existence thereby.
Supreme Court of India Cites 67 - Cited by 540 - Full Document

Hindustan Steel Ltd vs State Of Orissa on 4 August, 1969

16. According to Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa 1978 E.L.T. 154 penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law and was guilty of conduct concamacious or dishonest or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. The Hon'ble Court further held that even if a minimum penalty is prescribed the authority competent to impose penalty will be justified in refusing to invoke penalty when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from the bonafide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statue. Thus, on the same analogy the second appellant, Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma is not liable for any penal 11 C/53219-53220/2018 action and so the penal proceedings initiated in the show cause notice merits to be dropped.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 1607 - J C Shah - Full Document

Union Of India & 2 vs Thakar Shivprasad Mohanlal on 21 February, 2014

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Keshedeo Shivprasad 2002 (145) ELT A 163 (S.C.) has held that incidental or ancillary process must be an integral and inextricable part of production or manufacture resulting in presenting a finished or manufactured product bearing a distinct name. In this case, it was held that duty on packaged tea packed from fully manufactured loose tea was not sustainable.
Gujarat High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - K Jhaveri - Full Document
1   2 Next