Fusion Polymers Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 3 April, 1991
i) FUSION POLYMERS LTD. Vs COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE
[1991 (56) E.L.T. 665 (Tri.), it was held that job worker being
independent units are the manufacturers.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.30 seconds)The Central Excise Act, 1944
Ujagar Prints Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 4 November, 1988
iii) Ujagar Prints v. UOI - 1989 (39) ELT 493 (SC) (5-Member
Constitution Bench), it was held that excise duty is on 'manufacture and
production of goods' and liability to pay duty is not dependent upon
whether the manufacturer is owner or not. Job worker is the
manufacturer, even if raw material and designs were given by
appellant.
The Commissioner Of Customs & Central ... vs M/S. Vijay Packaging Systems Ltd on 8 September, 2010
Marble blocks are also Nil rated in CETA under CTH 25151210. Further
held that exports through merchant exporter supported by VAT 15/H
form is not required to be considered for SSI Exemption. Relying on the
ruling in CCE vs Udaipur Surgicals 2011(264)ELT 145 and also in CCE
vs. Universal Packaging 2013 (292)ELT.191 (Bombay). He also
observed that the duty have been wrongly calculated, as effective duty
cannot exceed the duty prescribed under CETA.
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
Section 11 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
M/S. Raymond Ltd vs Cce, Bhopal on 9 January, 2013
iv) Raymond Ltd. v. CCE (2014) 308 ELT 151 (CESTAT): In Mayo
India Ltd. v. CCE 1999(113) ELT 1036 (CEGAT 3-member bench)
also, it was held that job worker is the manufacturer and raw material
supplier is not manufacturer if relationship is principal to principal basis.
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Ganesh Metal Processors Inds. on 13 November, 2002
ii) Union of India Vs Ganesh Metal Processors Industries. [2003(151)
ELT.21(S.C)
M/S.Mayar India Ltd., C.C.E., Delhi-Ii vs C.C.E., Delhi-Ii, M/S.Mayar India Ltd on 22 February, 2016
iv) Raymond Ltd. v. CCE (2014) 308 ELT 151 (CESTAT): In Mayo
India Ltd. v. CCE 1999(113) ELT 1036 (CEGAT 3-member bench)
also, it was held that job worker is the manufacturer and raw material
supplier is not manufacturer if relationship is principal to principal basis.