Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)
Commnr. Of Central Excise, Nagpur vs M/S. Gurukripa Resins Pvt. Ltd on 11 July, 2011 cites

Commissioner Of Central Excise,Bolpur vs M/S.Ratan Melting & Wire Industries on 14 October, 2008

19. In that view of the matter, when the law on the question at issue before the Tribunal had already been declared by this Court, the Tribunal should not have based its decisions on the clarification issued by the Board, 1 which otherwise stood rescinded, on the specious ground that the said clarification issued by the Board was binding on the Deputy Commissioner as also on the Commissioner (Appeals). It is well settled proposition of law that Circulars and instructions issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs are no doubt binding in law on the authorities under the respective Statutes but when this Court or the High Court declares the law on the question arising for consideration, it would not be appropriate for the Courts or the Tribunal, as the case may be, to direct that the Board's Circular should be given effect to and not the view expressed in a decision of this Court or a High Court. [(See: Ratan Melting & Wire Industries (supra)].
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 145 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Collector Of Central Excise, Vadodra vs M/S. Dhiren Chemical Industries on 12 December, 2001

5. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee carried the matter in further appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, placing reliance on the clarification issued by the Ministry of Finance vide letter No. B-36/11/77-TRU dated 10th/16th January, 1978, wherein it was clarified that so long as the use of power is limited to drawing water into a cooling tank through which condensation coils pass, manufacture of Rosin cannot be said to be with the aid of power, for the purpose of Notification No. 179/77-CE dated 18th June, 1977, came to the conclusion that the said clarification was binding on the revenue, including the Commissioner (Appeals), the same being a Circular beneficial to the assessee. Drawing support from the decision of this Court in Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara Vs. Dhiren Chemical 4 Industries1, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that in light of the said clarification the decision of this Court in Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur Vs. Rajasthan State Chemical Works, Deedwana, Rajasthan2 cannot be relied upon by the revenue. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the assessee was allowed by the Tribunal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 203 - Full Document

M/S Impression Prints vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 24 August, 2005

16. A similar question came up for consideration of this Court in Impression Prints (supra), again strongly relied upon by learned counsel for the revenue. In that case the assessee was manufacturing printed bed sheets, bed covers and pillow covers, and for that purpose the colour was mixed with the help of colour mixing machine, which was operated with the aid 1 of power. The question arose whether the said goods were manufactured with the aid of power. While holding that the activity of printing and colouring being integrally connected to the manufacture of printed bed sheets, bed covers etc., the manufacture of these goods was with the aid of power, the Court culled out the following parameters from the earlier pronouncements, which could be applied for determining the question whether a particular process carried on in respect of the final product amounts to manufacture of that product: (i) the term "manufacture" in Section 2(f) of the Act includes any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product; (ii) if power is used for any of the numerous processes that are required to turn the raw material into the finished articles then the "manufacture" will be with the use of power;
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - S N Variava - Full Document
1