Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.23 seconds)
Fair Exports (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 23 September, 2003 cites

Union Of India And Ors vs Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. And Anr on 19 April, 1995

We agree with the Respondents that the impugned material is only a waste product and not a finished product. The mere fact that it is sold as such in the market without any further processing would not make the impugned product a finished product. It is well known fact that generally the waste products are sold as such only without any further processing. Further, as held by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. [1995 (77) E.L.T. 268 (S.C.) = 1995 (8) RLT 421 (S.C.) even rubbish can be sold and everything which is sold is not necessarily a marketable commodity. Accordingly, the fact of selling of Churi Korma will not make it a finished product. Thus the mischief of proviso to Notification No. 8/97-C.E., dated 1-3-97 is not attracted in respect of Churi Korma as it is a waste product and the proviso is applicable only to 'finished product'. Accordingly we find no reason to interfere with the impugned Order and reject the appeal filed by the Revenue."
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 99 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Neelkanth Polymers on 11 November, 2002

3. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. Learned Advocate has rightly pointed out that the decision in the case of C.C.E., Jaipur v. Neelkanth Polymers, is squarely applicable to the facts of the present matter. In the said decision, the benefit of Notification No. 8/97-C.E. was disallowed in respect of by-product known as 'churi korma' obtained during the process of manufacture of guar gum powder out of guar seeds. The Tribunal in the said decision has held as under:
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1