Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)The Central Excise Act, 1944
Cce vs Ballarpur Industries Ltd. on 3 April, 2000
It is also worth mentioning that in Ballarpur's case, the Supreme Court observed that their observation in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Thomas Stemphen & Co. Ltd., 1988 (34) ELT 412 (S.C.) do not lend themselves to the understanding that for something to qualify itself as "Raw-material" it must, necessarily and in all cases go into, and be found, in the end product. The judgment in the case of Coastal Chemicals Ltd., relied upon by the learned Advocate, is not applicable to the facts of the present matter. The expression "consumable" was used in Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 along with words namely 'raw material', 'component part', 'sub-assembly part' and 'intermediate part' and the Supreme Court in view of such a provision has held therein that the word 'consumables' in the said Act refers only to material which is utilised as an input in the manufacturing process but is not identifiable in the final product by reason of the fact that it has got consumed therein. In the present matter only words "raw materials" have been used in Notification No.8/97 and as per decision in Coastal Chemicals Ltd. Itself consumables "would fall within the broader scope of the words 'raw material'."
The Finance Act, 2018
Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company vs Collector Of Central Excise, Bombay on 28 March, 1995
The finding of the Commissioner that the ingredient of Proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act "is not what was in the notice of the Department but it is what was the suppression or wilful misstatement on the part of the assessee" is against the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company, supra, wherein the Apex Court has held that "where facts are known to both the parties, the omission by one to do what he might have done and not that he must have done, does not render it suppression." Accordingly, the extended period of limitation is not invocable in the present matter. We, therefore, uphold the demand of duty only for the normal period specified in Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act.
Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957
The Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... vs Maruti Udyog Ltd. on 17 January, 2005
The price has to be treated as cum duty price in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. supra. The jurisdictional Adjudicating Authority has to recompute the duty amount which will be payable by the Appellants. Penalty is not imposable in the present matter as the issue involved was one of the interpretation. We, therefore, set aside the penalty imposed on the Appellants. As we have held that there was no suppression of facts, interest under Section 11 AB of the Central Excise Act is not chargeable prior to 11.5.2001 as the interest was demandable at that time under Section 11 AB only when duty of excise has been short paid, etc. by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts. The interest is however, chargeable under Section 11 AB with effect from 12.5.2001 after substitution of Section 11 AB (1) by the Finance Act 2001 since the interest is now chargeable if duty has been short paid, etc. without any reference of fraud etc.
Deputy Commissioner Of Sales Tax ... vs Thomas Stephen & Co . Ltd. Quilon on 14 March, 1988
It is also worth mentioning that in Ballarpur's case, the Supreme Court observed that their observation in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Thomas Stemphen & Co. Ltd., 1988 (34) ELT 412 (S.C.) do not lend themselves to the understanding that for something to qualify itself as "Raw-material" it must, necessarily and in all cases go into, and be found, in the end product. The judgment in the case of Coastal Chemicals Ltd., relied upon by the learned Advocate, is not applicable to the facts of the present matter. The expression "consumable" was used in Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 along with words namely 'raw material', 'component part', 'sub-assembly part' and 'intermediate part' and the Supreme Court in view of such a provision has held therein that the word 'consumables' in the said Act refers only to material which is utilised as an input in the manufacturing process but is not identifiable in the final product by reason of the fact that it has got consumed therein. In the present matter only words "raw materials" have been used in Notification No.8/97 and as per decision in Coastal Chemicals Ltd. Itself consumables "would fall within the broader scope of the words 'raw material'."
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Asia Peroxides Ltd. on 4 February, 2004
He also relied upon the decision in the case of CCE Guntur v. Asia Peroxides Ltd. [2004 (168) ELT 201 (Tri)].
1