Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.51 seconds)International Tractor Co. Of India Ltd. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 28 June, 1976
(iii) International Tractor Co. v. U.O.I., 1977 (1) E.L.T. (J 133) (Bom.)
Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Maharashtra ... vs Oil Processors Private on 14 August, 1997
This judgment has been followed in numerous cases. The true test for determining whether manufacture can be said to have taken place is whether the commodity which is subjected to the process of manufacture can no longer be regarded as the original commodity but is recognised in trade as a new and distinct commodity. In the present case, the appellants bring used transformer oil and by removing impurities, it is made again usuable as transformer oil. Both before and after the processing, the product is only transformer oil. That being so, it cannot be said that a new and distinct commodity has come into existence consequent to the process undertaken by the appellants. Similar was the view of the Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Oil Processors Pvt. Ltd., supra, wherein it was held that "activity of converting the used-waste lubricating oil into usuable lubricating oil is not a refining process." The learned Counsel, appearing for the appellants has referred to a number of decisions in which it has been held that a process will amount to manufacture only if a new and distinct commodity emerges as a result of manufacture.
State Of Maharashtra vs M/S. Shiv Datt And Sons, Etc. on 16 January, 1992
He also relied upon the decision in State of Maharashtra v. Shiv Datt & Sons, AIR 1992 SC 692, Premji Haridas & Co. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, 1997 (89) E.L.T. 658 (Bom.) wherein the conversion of castor oil (commercial) to castor oil (BP) by a process of filteration was held to be not amounting to manufacture as no new product emerged. The reliance was also placed on the following two decisions :-
Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs C.C.E. on 29 November, 1995
(i) Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. C.C.E., 1985 (22) E.L.T. 232 (Tribunal)
Union Of India & Anr vs Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. & Anr on 6 May, 1997
7. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. It is well setlled law that to amount to manufacture, a new commodity having distinct name, character or use should emerge as a result of process of manufacture. Manufacture implies a change, but every change is not manufacture. The Apex Court in the landmark decision in the case of U.O.I. v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. - 1977 (1) E.L.T. (J199), held that "The word 'manufacture' used as a verb is generally understood to mean as 'bringing into existence a new substance,' however, minor in consequence the change may be." The Apex Court further quoted the following passage from an American judgment:
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
Brakes India Ltd. vs Supdt. Of Central Excise And Ors. on 13 March, 1997
In Brakes India case, supra, also the Supreme Court considered the 'Character or use' before holding the process of drilling, trimming & Chamfering of brake lining blanks as the process amounting to manufacture. The Supreme Court referred to the observation of the High Court that sometime it may suit the manufacturer to retain and stamp the same name to the end products also. Such is not the case in the present matter as used transformer oil remains to be transformer oil after the process undertaken by the appellants. In these circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
Premji Haridas & Co. vs Municipal Corpn. Of Greater Bombay on 23 February, 1996
He also relied upon the decision in State of Maharashtra v. Shiv Datt & Sons, AIR 1992 SC 692, Premji Haridas & Co. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, 1997 (89) E.L.T. 658 (Bom.) wherein the conversion of castor oil (commercial) to castor oil (BP) by a process of filteration was held to be not amounting to manufacture as no new product emerged. The reliance was also placed on the following two decisions :-
Apar Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise And Customs on 13 April, 1992
5. He contended that this process of reclamation of transformer oil definitely amounts to manufacture as per the definition of word 'manufacture' in Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. He further mentioned that the product had undergone a sea changes because of the treatment undertaken by the appellants. He relied upon the decision in Apar Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., 1987 (28) E.L.T. 70 in which it was held that transformer base stock cannot be used as insulating oil without purification.