Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.44 seconds)The Central Excise Act, 1944
Modi Carpets Limited And Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 16 April, 1980
15. We may also point out that in Modi Carpets Ltd. v. Union of India - 1980 E.L.T. 320, the question whether excise duty could be levied and recovered on 'Silver' obtained by the petitioner as an "in-process material" in the manufacture of woollen yarn in its factory premises was answered in the negative Caltex (Supra) and Delhi Cloth Mills - 1978 E.L.T. (J 121) were followed, we are, therefore, clearly of opinion that no excise duty is leviable merely because in the process of manufacture of varnish an intermediate product which may be described as resin also emerges.
Geep Flashlight Industries Ltd vs Union Of India And Ors on 28 October, 1976
16. Reference was made on behalf of the respondent to the decision of Allahabad High Court in Geep Flashlight Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (1979 E.L.T. J. 674). In that case, the company was a manufacturer of dry cell batteries. For this purpose the company needed since cans. It purchased zinc ingots, melted them in a furnace and pressed them into moulds to form zinc slabs. The slabs were then heated incrolled into a flat form with the help of rollers out of which callots were punched. From these callots, cans were made by the impact extrusion process. Thereafter, required Chemicals were filled into the cans which after sealing and cladding took the shape of finished dry cell batteries. The question for consideration was whether the rough flat forms of zinc obtained during the process of manufacture which were not removed from the premises but were immediately put to use by feeding them hot into a punching process were excisable as "zinc sheets" falling under Item 26-B(2) of the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Court found that the flat form from which callots were punched was a produce commercially known as zinc sheets and accepted the argument on behalf of the Revenue that though the zinc sheets did not go out the factory premises as such, there was a removal in law as contemplated in Rule 9 because they were admittedly removed from the rolling mill for consumption or for manufacture of another excisable commodity. The Judgment contains no discussion of the contention (which has been upheld in Nirlon & Caltex) that the entire process of manufacture of dry cell batteries was a continuous one and that the utilisation of the zinc sheets even while they were white hot for the purpose of producing the end product could not be described as removal for purpose of manufacture within the meaning of Rules 9 and 19. The Court relied on Rule 173-G for its conclusion but it seems to us that this rule is not helpful. It only lays down the accounting procedure to be followed where the excisable goods are intended to be, and are, removed within the meaning of Rules 9 and 49 so as to attract excise duty.
Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950
Section 4 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
1