Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.33 seconds)
Chem Teak Company vs Additional Sales Tax Officer - Ii on 1 August, 2003 cites

Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax (Law) ... vs Pio Food Packers on 9 May, 1980

When timber like teak, rose wood, etc. are used for manufacturing furniture, it became costly. An alternative had to be worked out and chemically treated rubber wood was found out for using as timber or raw material for making furniture. Unless the mere slicing of pineapple after removing the unedible part as in M/s. Pio Food Packer's case (Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Plo Food Packers ((1980) 46 STC 63 = AIR 1980 SC 1227)), the processing in this case is complicated in nature. People in the trade also understand chemically treated rubber wood as a different product or raw material for making furniture whereas untreated rubber wood is only used as firewood. The resultant commodity is no longer regarded as original commodity. The people generally dealing with rubber wood also consider them as two different products. After chemical treatment the value of rubber wood will increase by ten times. Its utility is different and process applied is not a mere process for preservation but a complicated process and the resultant product is commercially considered as a different product.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 305 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Empire Industries Limited & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 6 May, 1985

In Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (AIR 1986 SC 662) the Supreme Court held that "'Greyfabric' after they undergo the various processes of bleaching, dyeing, sizing, printing, finishing, etc. emerges as a commercially different commodity with its own price-structure, utility and other commercial incidents and that there was in that sense a 'manufacture' within the meaning of Section 2(f), even as unamended".
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 400 - A Varadarajan - Full Document

B.P.L. India Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Cochin on 7 May, 2002

Recently the Supreme Court in B.P.L. India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin (2002 AIR SCW 2175) observed that the question as to when a manufacture takes place is a mixed question of law and fact and that nature and the extent of process may vary from case to case. It was also observed that "when a change takes places and a new distinct article comes into existence known to the consumers and the commercial community as a commercial product, which can be no longer regarded as the original commodity, such a change constitutes a process of manufacture". The definition of 'manufacture' in S.R.O. No. 1729/93 also tallies with the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in this case. The State Level Committee also after going into the matter in detail found that conversion of raw rubber wood which can be used only as fire wood into a commercially different product as chemically treated rubber wood which can be used as a raw material for making furniture will be a manufacture and consequently amendment was made. Therefore, amendment is only clarificatory in nature. The amendment brought into by S.R.O. No. 295/98 is only clarificatory in nature. Further citizens doing industrial units in similar activity are cannot be treated differently. Even before the amendment came into force, several units were given the benefit and there cannot be any descrimination and it cannot be stated that it is manufacture for some units and not manufacture for the appellant's unit. State cannot descriminate the industrial units doing the same manufacturing activities and cannot ignore the mandate of Article 14. The detailed chemical treatment is not mainly to preserve the goods in good condition and for easy transportation. By the processing, wood in question becomes not only durable but it is transformed into timber having strength and capability for making furniture and the entire trade as well as the ordinary people who deals with rubber wood consider it as a commercially different product. After detailed chemical treatment the character of a mere rubber wood will change as a commercially known timber for manufacturing furniture. The process applied in this case is not a mere processing or preserving the goods in good condition or for easy transportation. In any event, it is commercially a different product.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 15 - S V Patil - Full Document
1   2 Next