Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.19 seconds)Dalhousie Jute Co. Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 13 May, 1970
(ii) the Calcutta High Court in A.I.R. 1970 Calcutta 479 (Dalhousie Co. v. Union of India) holding, inter alia, that more coating of jute fabric with solution would not change the character of the product or transform it into another, and duty charged by difference in weight between the original jute fabric and the coated fabric was in reality duty on the coating material, not assessable to duty at all;
Swastic Products, Baroda vs Superintendent Of Central Excise on 1 January, 1800
(iv) the Gujarat High Court in 1980 E.L.T. 164 (Swastic Products, Baroda v. Supdt. of Central Excise) holding that colouring of paper already manufactured is not a process in the manufacture of paper, nor can the process be said to be one incidental or ancillary to the manufacture of paper ; the Madras High Court observed in 1980 E.L.T. 579 that no manufacture of a new kind of paper is involved in the process of bituminisation of kraft paper to attract levy of duty under Item 17(2) of the Schedule ;
Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products ... vs Union Of India And Others on 1 January, 1800
7. Yet another case cited for the Respondent can be distinguished from the instant case. That is the case of Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products v. Union of India in 1980 E.L.T. (Delhi) 735.
South Bihar Sugar Mills Ltd., Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 February, 1968
While relying on the meaning given to manufacture in A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 79 Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills) and A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 922 South Bihar Sugar Mills v. Union of India), the decision in the said case was, in the main, reached on the specific inclusion of the resultant product, namely. Asbestos fibre, in the Schedule, which conclusively determines its exigibility to duty, regardless of whether the process of making the fibre involved manufacture or not. "When the legislature has treated an article as manufacture, the argument is not open that it is not a manufacture". Again, it was observed, "legislature having determined that asbestos fibre is obtained by process of manufacture it would, I feel, be usually extremely hazardous and normally impermissible for the Court to say that this is not a manufacture". In the instant case, bituminisation as a process of manufacture had not been, unlike asbestos fibre, specifically adverted to and duty levied separately in Item 17(2) of the Schedule and if at all, can be said to have been included by a construction of the inclusive definition of "Paper or Paper Board" in item 17(2). The ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Delhi High Court is not strictly applicable.
Section 35 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Kwality Coated Products vs Government Of India And Anr. on 1 January, 1800
5. Shri Khaitan, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted fairly, even at the outset, that while the decision of the Madras High Court in 1980 E.L.T. 579 Kwality Coated Products v. Govt. of India-(now stated to be the subject matter of an Appeal in the Supreme Court), supported his case in the Appeal, that in 1981 E.C.R. 113 (Standard Packaging v. Union of India) by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh was against his contentions.
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Standard Packagings vs Union Of India And Anr. on 21 November, 1980
5. Shri Khaitan, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted fairly, even at the outset, that while the decision of the Madras High Court in 1980 E.L.T. 579 Kwality Coated Products v. Govt. of India-(now stated to be the subject matter of an Appeal in the Supreme Court), supported his case in the Appeal, that in 1981 E.C.R. 113 (Standard Packaging v. Union of India) by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh was against his contentions.
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Delhi Cloth & General Mills on 12 October, 1962
While relying on the meaning given to manufacture in A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 79 Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills) and A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 922 South Bihar Sugar Mills v. Union of India), the decision in the said case was, in the main, reached on the specific inclusion of the resultant product, namely. Asbestos fibre, in the Schedule, which conclusively determines its exigibility to duty, regardless of whether the process of making the fibre involved manufacture or not. "When the legislature has treated an article as manufacture, the argument is not open that it is not a manufacture". Again, it was observed, "legislature having determined that asbestos fibre is obtained by process of manufacture it would, I feel, be usually extremely hazardous and normally impermissible for the Court to say that this is not a manufacture". In the instant case, bituminisation as a process of manufacture had not been, unlike asbestos fibre, specifically adverted to and duty levied separately in Item 17(2) of the Schedule and if at all, can be said to have been included by a construction of the inclusive definition of "Paper or Paper Board" in item 17(2). The ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Delhi High Court is not strictly applicable.
1