Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.21 seconds)The Central Excise Act, 1944
M/S. Anwarkhan Mahboob Co vs The State Of Bombay (Now Maharashtra) ... on 20 September, 1960
While dealing with the above-said case Their Lordships of the Supreme Court had also taken into consideration the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Anwarkhan Mahboob Co. v. State of Bombay, wherein it was held that when uncrushed salt was crushed in the factory and commercially a different article was produced, the uncrushed salt must be held to have been consumed. Applying the same analogy in the present case we do not find it difficult to hold that the raw cotton seed oil which was processed in the factory of the petitioners and which ultimately produced "a different commercial article" and which is being exported, is consumed in the factory of the petitioners. In such a case we can conveniently hold that the raw cotton seed oil was consumed within the octroi limits and "a commercially different article" was exported outside the octroi limits. Hence, the petitioners cannot be said to be entitled for refund of the octroi paid while importing raw cotton seed oil.
The Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963
Atul Products Ltd. vs Union Of India And Others on 11 April, 1985
15. Shri P.M. Shah, learned Advocate for the petitioners, invited our attention to the decision of this Court reported in Atul Products Limited and others v. Union of India and others, . However, this is also a case under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. We, therefore, do not propose to deal with the same in details, as, in our opinion, the said case is also of no use to the learned Advocate for the petitioners on the point in question.
Burmah Shell Oil Storage &Distributing ... vs The Belgaum Borough Municipality on 16 November, 1962
19. It would be interesting to ascertain the correct meaning of the expression "consumption" for the purpose of levying octroi duty. "Consumption" cannot be given a limited meaning nor can one be myopic while looking at the word "consumption" in connection with the levy of octroi and refund claimed by the petitioners. The word "consumption" cannot be understood as having reference not merely to the individual importer or purchaser who has contemplated distribution of goods eventually to the consumers in general. An article which has been brought into the Corporation limits being consumed by the person importing it but the act of consumption can be postponed or may be performed by some-one else but once the goods are brought into the local area for consumption they satisfy the requirements as regards levy of octroi and it matters little as to who has brought them into the local area. We derive the advantage from the observations of the Supreme Court in in the case reported in Burma Shell Storage and Distributing Co. of India Ltd., Belgaum v. Belgaum Borough Municipality, Belgaon.
Kathiawar Industries Ltd vs Jaffrabad Municipality on 8 August, 1979
21. We can also conveniently rely on the decision reported in Kathiawar Industries Ltd. v. Jaffrabad Municipality, wherein the Apex Court considered the question whether salt manufactured by the appellant outside the octroi limits and brought within the octroi limits for the purpose of being crushed into powder in the factory of the appellant situated within those limits and then exported was liable to levy of octroi. In that case, it was held that the salt was liable to octroi duty.
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. vs Nadiad Nagarpalika And Anr. on 12 April, 1991
22. Shri P.M. Shah, learned Advocate for the petitioners, tried to rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in in the matter of Mafatlal Industries Limited v. Nadiad Nagarpalika and others. In that case, the point was as regards bringing of long cloth by the petitioner industry within the octroi limits and cutting the said cloth into small pieces and then again exporting the same. The Supreme Court while dealing with the above matter held that cutting of long cloth into small pieces of different length and then exporting the same would not amount to use or consumption of cloth within the octroi limits. The Supreme Court, therefore, held in that case that the octroi duty was not leviable on the said article. We are, however, not in a position to agree with the contention of Shri P.M. Shah, learned Advocate for the petitioners, for the simple reason that in the above-cited case, no doubt but for cutting of the long cloth into small pieces no other process was adopted. Hence, the question of cloth having been consumed in that process did not arise. The case in hand is absolutely different wherein certain processes are exercised on the raw cotton seed oil imported into the factory of the petitioners and exported after its purification which definitely added to the utility thereof. Even the condition of the goods can be said to have been changed from the one which was existing at the time of its import. The above-cited decision of the Supreme Court is not of any help to Shri Shah, Advocate. In our opinion the present petitioners cannot be said to be entitled for refund of duty asked for.