Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.26 seconds)
Ceat Tyres Of India Ltd. vs Union Of India And Others on 23 June, 1987 cites

Indian Plastics & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India And Others on 22 October, 1980

8. Mr. Talyarkhan also relied upon the case of Indian Plastics & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & others, reported in 1981 E.L.T. 108 (Del.), which is the case decided by the Delhi High Court. In this case the Delhi High Court considered the question as to whether the product, in that case, can be regarded as artificial or synthetic resin in liquid from after taking note of the fact that item No. 15A refers to all types of artificial and synthetic resins. The Court said as follows :
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Union Carbide India Limited vs Union Of India And Ors on 4 April, 1986

In any event, for the purpose of showing that there can be no excise duty as the product is not marketable at all, Mr. Talyarkhan relied upon a recent case of the Supreme Court in the case of Union Carbide India Ltd. v. Union of India and others, . That was a case where the Union Carbide India Ltd., which is carrying on a business of manufacture and sale of flashlights (torches), dry cell batteries, chemicals and plastics, were also purchasing aluminium slugs from the manufacturers of aluminium in India and were producing aluminium cans or torch bodies by a process of extrusion. The department contended that aluminium cans were liable for excise duty under item No. 27(c) of the Tariff. The company contended that aluminium cans were neither sold nor were capable of being sold in the market and, therefore could not be described as the goods for the purpose of Central Excises and Salt Act. It was also asserted that the preparation of aluminium cans out of aluminium slugs did not amount to manufacture, and that aluminium cans were merely an intermediate product in the manufacture of flashlights. These contentions did not find favour with the excise authorities. But the Supreme Court upheld these contentions. I may mention that while deciding this particular case, the Supreme Court referred to two earlier cases viz.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 130 - R S Pathak - Full Document

M.R.F. Limited vs Union Of India And Others on 3 July, 1985

12. Mr. Pochkhanwalla has also drawn my attention to two judgments, one of the Bombay High Court and the other of the Supreme Court. The first is the case of M.R.F. LTD. v. Union of India, reported in 1985 (22) E.L.T. 5 (Bom.). He referred to this judgment to point out, what is important is that a particular item is manufactured by the company and that is sufficient, provided the said item comes under any of the Tariff items. In this case the question involved was as to whether rubberised tyre cord warp sheets can be considered as an item which would be liable for excise duty. By referring to certain observations in this particular case Mr. Pochkhanwalla pointed out that marketability is not the test but the test is whether the manufacturer has manufactured a particular item, and even if the same is not put in the market that would not make any difference to the chargeability of the substance to excise duty if it is covered by an item in schedule 1 of the Act. I am afraid that these observations may not apply to the present case inasmuch as in para 13 of the said judgment the Court had come to the conclusion that the material was saleable.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 29 - Full Document

Sir Shadilal Sugar And General Mills ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 22 April, 1971

13. The other case which is of the Supreme Court is the case of S. B. Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in 1978 E.L.T. (J 336). The relevant observations are in para 14 of the judgment. The question involved in this case was one relating to what is known as Kiln gas. However, in my view, I need not deal with this authority at all, inasmuch as the Supreme Court while deciding the case of Union Carbide India Ltd., referred to above, had taken into account this very case and, thereafter, laid down the proposition that for the purpose of chargeability the goods must be as to have a market or must be saleable.
Allahabad High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 35 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Collector Of Central Excise vs Jay Enterprises And 5 Ors. on 23 January, 1987

14. Mr. Pochkhanwalla has also relied upon a case decided by the CEGAT viz. the case of Collector v. Jay Enterprises and 5 others, reported in 1987 (29) E.L.T. 288 (Tribunal). This is a case where the question was one relating to manufacture of resin. The judgment deals with the details of the product and points out that there are various stages in the manufacture. They are set out in para 8 of the judgment. After setting out these various stages the Tribunal goes to observe that in the case of resins there are so many varieties and these have wide-ranging shelf lives ranging from a few days to a couple of months or even more. The Tribunal further observes that the product has a short shelf life and that it has been conceded by the learned advocate that it can be kept for as long as 15 days. On the basis of this the Tribunal observes that at that stage the material could be sold to a consumer or a buyer. The Tribunal of course, has negatived the contention of the manufacturer that the product manufactured by the company should be marketable. This case again can be distinguished on two courts. Firstly, there is a concession by advocate of the manufacturers that the particular product could be kept for about 15 days and that it could be sold to the consumer or a buyer if they required the same. Secondly, to the proposition that whether the product is marketed or sold would not make any difference, appears to be in contradiction to what the Supreme Court has stated.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 8 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1