Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.73 seconds)The Gujarat Finance Act, 1932
Shakti Insulated Wires Pvt. Limited And ... vs Union Of India And Others on 3 October, 1981
8A. The learned Advocate has relied upon two judgments of Bombay High Court. One is reported in 1987 (31) ELT 623 (Bom.) in the case of Shakti Insulated Wires Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.. In the said case the question for consideration was whether heavy viscous liquid produced by the petitioners in an unfinished condition at an intermediary stage of manufacture of Varnish was resin or polyester resin for the purpose of Central Excise duty under Item 15A of the Central Excise Tariff. It was observed in that case that heavy viscous liquid was in unfinished condition. Expert opinion in that case revealed that heavy viscous liquid was not a product of commercial use and it was not marketable goods. In that context, it was held that the said viscous liquid could not be treated as resin or polyester resin for the purpose of classification under Tariff Item 15A of the Central Excise Tariff.
The Delhi Cloth And General Mills Co. ... vs The Joint Secretary, Govt. Of India And ... on 16 February, 1978
8. The decision of Delhi High Court reported in 1978 ELT (J 121) in the case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited and Anr. v. Joint Secretary, Government of India and Anr. also does not help the case of the appellants. In the said case, Calcium carbide in naked form was produced and used in the manufacture of acetylene gas within the factory of manufacture. Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the said calcium carbide was not "goods" because it did not attain the material form and purity as required by the Carbide of Calcium Rules, 1937 and hence, was not liable to excise duty under Item 14AA. The said decision is not applicable to the present case as the facts are different. The marketability of Calcium carbide was governed by Chapter III of the Carbide of Calcium Rules, 1937 made under Petroleum Act, 1934. Rule 20 of the Carbide of Calcium Act, 1937 required that Calcium Carbide must attain the requisite degree of purity before it could he-rendered commercial or marketable. Calcium Carbide which did not attain the material form and composition required by the Carbide of Calcium Rules for marketability, was not marketable at all in view of the prohibition imposed by the Carbide of Calcium Rules. As the Calcium Carbide manufactured by the petitioners in that case, did not satisfy the requirement of the said Rules, the Hon'ble High Court held that those were not Calcium Carbide as commercially known and hence not dutiable under Tariff Item 14AA. In the present case, there is no such requirement.
Union Carbide India Limited vs Union Of India And Ors on 4 April, 1986
7. In support of his argument that no Central Excise duty is chargeable on the appellants' product Bicarbonate of Soda, the learned Advocate has relied on four judgments, one of Supreme Court and three of High Courts. The case of Union Carbide India Limited v. Union of India and Ors., reported in 1986 (24) ELT 169 (S.C.), related to aluminium cans. The appellants in that case manufactured aluminium cans which were captively consumed by them in the manufacture of flashlight and torches. Hon'ble Supreme Court held in that case that aluminium cans were not goods and did not attract Central Excise duty under Item 27 of the Central Excise Tariff. The said case is, however, clearly distinguishable from the case before us. In that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that cans had sharp uneven edges and in order to use them as a component in making flashlight cases, the cans had to undergo various processes such as trimming, threading and redrawing. After the cans were trimmed, threaded and redrawn, they were reeded, beaded and anodized or painted. It was at that point only that cans became a distinct and complete component capable of being used as flashlight case for housing battery cells and having a bulb fitted to the case. It was in those facts of the case that the Supreme Court held that cans on which duty was demanded were not "goods" to be liable to Central Excise duty under Tariff Item 27. In the present case before us, Bicarbonate of Soda came into existence within the Tariff description. It is a different matter that the entire quantity of Bicarbonate of Soda was consumed by them captively and the same was not sold in the market. That does not take away the product from the perview of Central Excise duty after the amendment of Rules 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules retrospectively by the Finance Act, 1982.
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Kores India Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise on 3 October, 1986
Dai-ichi Karkaria Private Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune and in the decision reported in 1987 (27) E.LT. 292 (Tribunal) in the case of Kores India Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. In the case of Dai-ichi Karkaria Private Limited, the facts were that the appellants - M/s. Dai-ichi Karkaria Private Limited manufactured detergent products falling under Tariff Item 15AA of the Central Excise Tariff. Sulphonation was a part of the process to make detergent products. The process involved In the manufacture of detergent products was burning of sulphur with air which brought into existence, at an intermediate stage, Sulphur Dioxide (SO2). That gas passed over some catalysts in the continuous and uninterrupted process and the said gas contained Sulphur Trioxide (SOa). The appellants removed SO2 without payment of duty. A show cause notice was, therefore, issued demanding duty over a period of time. The Additional Collector, who adjudicated the case, imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- on the said appellants and demanded duty on sulphur trioxide. The matter came up in appeal before this Tribunal. The appellants submitted that Sulphur Trioxide (SO3) was only an intermediate product in continuous process and there was no removal of the gas under Central Excise Law and, therefore, there could be no levy of excise duty on the same. It was also submitted that SO3 as produced was full of impurity and was not known in the market as Sulphur Trioxide. It was held by this Tribunal in that case that Sulphur Trioxide (SO3) came into existence and the fact that the appellant did not market the product could not be a good reason to hold that SO3 did not come into existence or that it was not marketable. It was also held that the Central Excise Law did not exempt intermediate products from duty of excise. Under Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, Central Excise dirty was leviable on manufacture. The amendments of Rules 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were made retrospective under Section 51 of the Finance Act, 1982. Therefore, SO3 manufactured and consumed by the appellants in the said case was chargeable to Central Excise duty. In the decision reported in 1987 (27) E.LT. 292 (Tribunal), this Tribunal held that the taxable event for Central Excise was the manufacture of excisable goods and the moment there was a transformation into a new commodity, commercially known as a distinct and separate commodity having its own character, use and name, manufacture took place and liability to duty was attracted. In that case it was also held that the appellants' argument that the stencil skin was not bought or sold in the market place was immaterial as it was not a general consumption item but a highly specialized one.
South Bihar Sugar Mills Ltd., Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 February, 1968
In the case of South Bihar Sugar Mills Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., reported in 1978 ELT (J 336), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held, that duty of Excise is on manufacture and not on sale and, therefore, the mere fact that a product is not actually sold would not make any difference in determining excisability of product.
The Petroleum Act, 1934
Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 May, 1985
So long as the product falls within the Tariff description, it is classifiable under that Tariff Entry irrespective of the purity of the goods. So far as the classification under New Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 is concerned, she has drawn our attention to Chapter Note 2(a) in Chapter 28 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and the Tariff Heading 2805.30 and has argued that this Tariff Heading is specific for Sodium Bicarbonate and according to Chapter Note 2(a) Sodium Bicarbonate in impure form will also fall under this Heading. She has relied upon a number of judgments in support of her arguments. One of the judgments relied upon by her is the Supreme Court decision in the case of Indian Aluminium Cable Limited v. Union of India and Ors., reported in 1985 (21) ELT 3 (S.C.), in which it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "Specifications issued by the Indian Standard Institution are for ensuring quality control and have nothing to do with the class to which the goods belong in a Tariff Schedule".