Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)
Straw Board Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 23 January, 1990 cites

Collector Of Central Excise, Bombay-Ii vs Kiran Spinning Mills, Kolshet Road, ... on 15 February, 1988

In the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bombay II v. Kiran Spinning Mills, Thane, reported in 1988 (16) - ECR 115 (S.C.), it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that straightening and cutting of the running lengths of man-made fibre into shorter lengths was not 'manufacture' under the Central Excise Law as no new substance was brought into existence. Following the ratio of the said judgment, cutting of gummed , paper into tapes does not amount to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. In order to fall under Tariff Item 60, adhesive tape must be the result of "manufacture". The process adopted by the appellants in manufacturing these tapes does not amount to manufacture and this is one of the reasons why these tapes should not fall under Item 60 of the Central Excise Tariff.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 26 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Sales-Tax ... vs Shiphy International, Alleppey on 7 March, 1988

in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. Shiphy International, Alleppey, in which it was held that frog legs retained their original identity and were known as frog legs in the market even after cleaning and freezing. He has prayed that following the ratio of the judgments relied on by him, the appeal should be allowed and the tapes should be classified under Item 17(2) of the Central Excise Tariff.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 17 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs And Central Excise on 5 December, 1983

In support of his argument, Shri Sunder Rajan has relied on a decision of this Tribunal, reported in 1984 (16) ELT-339 (Tribunal) in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Bombay v. Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Bombay, in which, in paragraph 8 of the decision, the Tribunal held that "It is to be noted in this connection that the amendment of Central Excise Rules 9 & 49 effected by Section 51 of the Finance Act, 1982 makes it clear that intermediate products coming into existence in the course of a continuous process or otherwise are liable to be charged to excise duty on their removal within the factory of production for use in further manufacture of goods so long as such intermediate products are excisable goods within the meaning of the Act." In this decision, the Tribunal followed the ratio of the decision of Delhi High Court reported in 1980 (6) ELT-735 (Del.)
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 1 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products ... vs Union Of India And Others on 1 January, 1800

in the case of Hyderabad Asbestos and Cement Products Limited and Another v. Union of India and Ors., in which it was held that if Parliament had specifically included a particular product in the Central Excise Tariff Schedule its validity could not be questioned on the ground that the process resulting in the production of the product does not amount to manufacture.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 58 - Full Document

Kores (India) Limited vs Union Of India And Others on 17 November, 1980

Shri Sunder Rajan has also relied on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Kores (India) Limited v. Union of India and Ors., reported in 1982 (10) ELT 253 (Bom.), in which it has been held that if the Parliament has specifically included a particular product in the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff, its validity cannot be questioned on the ground that such product did not involve manufacture. It is further held in that case that the process of cutting large rolls of paper into specific sizes and dimensions and to roll them into teleprinter rolls with the aid of power-driven machines amounts to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises & Salt Act. He has argued that the present case is squarely covered by the judgments of Bombay and Delhi High Courts and also decision of this Tribunal as relied on by him. After the gummed paper is slit into tapes, the product becomes paper backed adhesive tapes and falls within a specific entry under Central Excise Tariff Item 60.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

Collector Of Central Excise, Kanpur vs Krishna Carbon Paper Co on 16 September, 1988

5. According to the definition in Mc Graw Hill's Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, 2nd Edition, Page 28, Adhesive tape means tape coated with a substance that binds or sticks to a surface There is no indication in this definition that the tape which binds or sticks to surface after being activated with solvent like water is also included in this definition. Therefore, in our view this definition refers to self-adhesive tapes not requiring a solvent. This is another reason why the product in dispute in this case will not fall under Tariff Item 60. According to IS:4661-1968 "Glossary of Terms used in Paper Trade and Industry", 2nd Reprint, April, 1982, gumming is "An operation consisting in applying a layer of adhesive to the whole or part of one side of a paper or board with a view to its subsequent use after moistening". This shows that gumming is a process of treating paper and treated paper falls under Item 17(2) of CET. We also observe that in the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, Explanatory Notes, gummed or adhesive paper has been shown in. Chapter 48, under Heading 4811.10. This shows that gummed or adhesive paper is also a variety of paper. Further, in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Krishna Carbon Co., reported in 1988 (37) ELT 480 (S.C.), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Carbon paper, as a coated paper, falls under Item 17(2) of the CET. Gummed paper is coated paper. On the basis of the said judgment of the Supreme Court the gummed paper would fall under Tariff Item 17(2). In the exemption notification relating to gummed paper, the Central Govt. also has stated that such paper falls under Tariff Item 17(2). Following the ratio of the judgment of Supreme Court, reported in 1988 (16) ECR115 (S.C.), we have already held that slitting of gummed paper into tapes does not involve manufacture and since Tariff Item 60 refers to the process of manufacture, the judgments of Delhi High Court, reported in 1980 (6) ELT 735 (Del.) and Bombay High Court, reported in 1982 (10) ELT 253 (Bom.) are of no help in favour of classifying the appellants' gummed paper tapes under Tariff Item 60.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 94 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Birla Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Limited ... vs Collector Of Central Excise And ... on 7 March, 1986

10. There is no doubt that converted types of paper fall under Item No. 17. In this Tribunal's Order Nos. 529 and 530/89-C dated 20-9-1989 in PurolatorIndia Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi (not cited), reference was made to the meaning of the term 'Conversion' as understood in the field of paper technology. The Institute of Paper Technology, Saharanpur had, in a communication, on the basis of "The Dictionary of Paper" published by American Paper and Pulp Association, New York, 1965, and the "ISO Recommendations R-66-1958 & R-231-1961-Paper Vocabulary", explained that 'conversion' is a general term applied to processes or operations on paper or board after normal paper making operations. For example, impregnation, waxing, gumming, machine coating, printing, bag etc. manufacturing are referred to as converting processes. Consequently, the Institute had opined that the impregnation of base filter paper with phenol formaldehyde resin solution, drying, cutting and pleating were conversion operations. On similar lines a clarification from The Directorate General of Technical Development, Govt. of India, Paper, Pulp & Timber Directorate, Development Officer, was also taken note of. The Tribunal noted that the process of pleating did not bring about any fundamental change in the filter paper except to make it possible to have a large surface area in a given volume due to the paper being pleated. On the same line of reasoning, it can be said that the process of slitting larger width gummed paper into strips or tapes of smaller width does not bring about any fundamental change in the paper. It continues to remain gummed paper of smaller dimensions, more convenient and ready to use in certain applications. In this view of the matter also, the strips or tapes made out of gummed paper of larger widths continued to be gummed paper falling for classification under Item 17(2), CET.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 8 - B N Kirpal - Full Document

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

2. We have heard Shri H.P. Arora, Advocate for the appellants and Shri A.S. Sunder Rajan, JDR for the respondent. Shri Arora has argued that the appellants manufacture gummed paper which is exempt from central excise duty by virtue of notification issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules. No duty is charged on the gummed paper in rolls. According to the central excise authorities, after gummed paper is slit in the form of tapes, it attracts duty under Central Excise Tariff Item 60. The learned advocate have argued that slitting of gummed paper does not amount to manufacture. Slitted gummed paper tapes continue to remain gummed paper and as such, no duty can be charged on the tapes. He has argued that Supreme Court, in its judgment reported in 1980 (6) ELT - 343 (S.C.) in the case of Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. Pio Food Packers, and Bombay High Court, in its judgment reported in 1980 (6) ELT 696 (Bom.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 305 - R S Pathak - Full Document
1   2 Next