Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.22 seconds)
Indian Petrochemicals Corporation ... vs Collector Of Central Excise, Vadodara on 5 March, 1997
cites
The Central Excise Act, 1944
State Of Haryana vs Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd on 20 November, 1987
In this connection, our attention is drawn to a decision of this Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. [1987] Supp. SCC 679. In that case, cement required for use in the generation or distribution of electrical energy was exempted from sale tax. The Punjab State Electricity Board had obtained the cement and given certificates that it was for use in the generation or distribution of electrical energy. The Court said that the mere fact that some of the cement supply was, in fact, used by the Board for activities not directly connected with the generation or distribution of electrical energy cannot make any difference to the availability of the exemption. The intention of the board was that the cement was directly connected with the generation or distribution of electrical energy.
Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, Bolpur on 20 February, 1997
In the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise C.A. Nos. 3406-11/90 with C.A. No. 3178/90 decided by this Court on 30-7-1995, S.P. Bharucha and K.T. Thomas, JJ.) raw naphtha was subjected to a concessional rate of duty under an exemption notification provided that it was intended for use in the manufacture of fertilizers. Raw naphtha which was so obtained by SAIL was according to the revenue not used entirely for the manufacture of fertilizers. According to SAIL, because of abnormal operating conditions there was excessive consumption of raw naphtha on account of low load operation, interruption in the plant operations due to low, uncertain and fluctuating availability of power. Also consumption of naphtha was further high because gases produced out of raw naphtha had to be vented due to acute power crisis causing interruption/stoppages of down stream units of the plant. The Court said that although raw naphtha for reasons beyond the control of SAIL did not, in fact, result in the manufacture of fertilizer and had to be vented at an interim stage, nevertheless it could not be said that SAIL had violated any condition of the exemption notification because raw naphtha which was fed by SAIL into its plant was for the purpose and with the intention of manufacturing fertilizers. It was only because of supervening circumstances that the reformed gas produced during the interim stage of manufacture had to be vented out.
1