Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.28 seconds)Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
M/S. Moti Laminates Pvt. Ltd. Etc vs The Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 14 February, 1995
We are of the opinion that in view of the judgments of
this Court in Moti Laminates Pvt. Ltd. & Others v. Collector
of Central Excise, Ahmedabad [1995 (76) ELT 241 (S.C.)
Union Of India & Anr vs Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. & Anr on 6 May, 1997
=
1995 (3) SCC 23] which has been re-affirmed in Union of
India v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. & Another
[1997 (92) ELT 315 (S.C.) = 1997 (5) SCC 767], the
reasoning of the majority Members that specification in the
tariff is proof of marketability, cannot be accepted. The
evidence as to marketability that the Revenue may produce is,
in our opinion, to be separately gone into in conjunction with
other evidence that is produced by the assessee. In the present
case, the two members who have gone merely by the
specification, have not gone into the evidence produced by
E/1093/2012 & Ors
15
the parties on the question of marketability. Hence on that
question, the matter has to be remitted to the Tribunal. On the
other question relating to whether the intermediate product
falls within the Tariff Item 15A(1)(ii) or not, one of the
members has directed a remand while the reasoning given by
the other two members is rather cryptic and not elaborate.
We, therefore, think that even on this point as to whether the
beads fall within Tariff Entry 15A(1)(ii), the matters have to
be remitted to the Tribunal.'
requiring us to go beyond mere ascertainment of entry in the Schedule
to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Indeed, the primary claim of the
appellant is that the laminate lacks the shelf-life for marketability and
hence is not excisable. However, it is on record that the product in
question is stored, even if in controlled condition, and is also sent to
M/s Pragati Plywood India Pvt Ltd for affixing the laminate on the
board. The length of shelf-life is not relevant in these circumstances.
The impugned goods are marketable and, hence, excisable.
Bata India Ltd vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, New Delhi on 12 April, 2010
8. According to Learned Counsel for the appellant, the finding on
excisability is contrary to law as the paper prepared for laminating of
boards had not been subjected to any chemical test by the tax
authorities and its storage in climatically controlled premises amply
testifies to absence of excisability. It was also contended that the
reliance placed on availability of an allegedly like article in India is on
shaky foundation as central excise authorities declined to furnish any
information about that imported article. Reliance was placed by him
on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Moti Laminates Pvt
Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad [1995 (76) ELT
241(SC)], in Union of India v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co Ltd
[1997 (92) ELT 315 (SC)], in Bata India Ltd v. Commissioner of
Central Excise, New Delhi [2010 (252) ELT 492 (SC)] and in
Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore - II v. Osnar Chemical
Pvt Ltd [2012 (276) ELT 162 (SC)].
Desh Rolling Mills vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 3 July, 2000
It was further submitted by
him that ownership and control of the materials, and deployment
thereof, remained with the appellant besides which an undertaking had
been furnished, in terms of notification 214/86-CE dated 25th March
1986, by the appellant to Kolhapur Central Excise; consequently, duty
liability devolved on the M/s Vilsons Particle Board Industries Ltd.
Reliance was placed by him on the decision of the Tribunal in Desh
Rolling Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi [2000 (122)
ELT 481(Tri)].
Banta Singh Kartar Singh Iron & Steel ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 8 April, 2003
9. Furthermore, he argued that, in the absence of an undertaking
by the appellant to discharge the duty liability, if any, devolving on a
'job worker', it is the de facto manufacturer who is liable for
compliance with such statutory liability and reliance was placed on
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Servo-Med Industries
Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai [2015 (318) ELT
E/1093/2012 & Ors
13
578 (SC)] and in Kartar Rolling Mills v. Commissioner of Central
Excise, New Delhi [2006 (197) ELT 151 (SC)] and of the Tribunal in
Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Pune-I [2018 (364) ELT 945 (Tri-LB)] and in Desh Rolling Mills v.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi [2000 (122) ELT 481 (Tri)].
M/S. Thermax Babcock &Amp; Wilcox Ltd. vs Cce Pune I on 27 November, 2018
9. Furthermore, he argued that, in the absence of an undertaking
by the appellant to discharge the duty liability, if any, devolving on a
'job worker', it is the de facto manufacturer who is liable for
compliance with such statutory liability and reliance was placed on
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Servo-Med Industries
Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai [2015 (318) ELT
E/1093/2012 & Ors
13
578 (SC)] and in Kartar Rolling Mills v. Commissioner of Central
Excise, New Delhi [2006 (197) ELT 151 (SC)] and of the Tribunal in
Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Pune-I [2018 (364) ELT 945 (Tri-LB)] and in Desh Rolling Mills v.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi [2000 (122) ELT 481 (Tri)].