Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.25 seconds)Section 3 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Union Carbide India Limited vs Union Of India And Ors on 4 April, 1986
This decision of the Allahabad High Court which was
relied upon by the Tribunal was set aside by this Court in
Appeal in the case of Union Carbide India Ltd. v. Union of
India & Ors. (supra). In view of the test laid down and in
view of the evidence discussed, it is difficult to sustain
the order of the Tribunal. In this connection, it appears
that there was no market enquiry by the Revenue. Reference
may be made to the crossexamination of Shri Shukla, Superin-
tendent (Central Excise) by Shri Nanawati as appears at pp.
235-237 of the present paper book. In view of the fact that
there was positive evidence that starch hydrolysate was
never marketed and in view of further fact that in the light
of the nature of the goods being highly unstable, it is
highly improbable that the goods were capable of being
marketed and there being in spite of
795
the opportunities, no evidence produced at all that the
goods, in fact, were capable of being marketable, in our
opinion, it must be held as did the Tribunal that the starch
hydrolysate were not dutiable under the Act.
In the premises, the revenue has failed to discharge its
onus to prove that starch hydrolysate was dutiable. In the
premises, the Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any
error. The appeal must, therefore, fail and is, accordingly,
dismissed. In the facts and the circumstances of the case,
there will, however, be no orders as to costs.
Union Of India vs Delhi Cloth & General Mills on 12 October, 1962
This
Court referred to the previous decision in the case of Union
of India v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd., [1963] Suppl.
1 SCR 586. Therefore, in this instant appeal, in order to
determine whether starch hydrolysate was "goods" or not, it
is necessary to determine whether there was any application
of process to the raw materials and as a result of that
application there emerged new and different article having a
distinctive name, character or use and the resultant product
being goods in the sense of being marketable or marketed.
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
Section 4 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd., National ... on 18 May, 1977
But the Tribunal in that case relied
on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of
Union of India v. Union Carbide India Ltd., [1978] ELT 1.
There the Allahabad High Court held that things would be
nevertheless goods even these did not have a general market,
where they can be easily bought and sold. The High Court
hold that the fact that products might not be known to the
general public or to the traders in general would not change
the position and therefore the test did not appear to be
sound.
Bhor Industries Ltd., Bombay vs Collector Of Central Excise, Bombay on 31 January, 1989
In the case of Bhor Industries Ltd., Bombay v. Collector
of Central Excise, Bombay, [1989] 1 SCC 602, this Court had
to deal with the liability to duty on intermediate products
and it was reiterated that liability to excise duty arises
only when there is manufacture of goods which is marketable
or capable of being marketed. It was held that excise is a
duty on goods as specified in the Schedule. The taxable
event in the case of excise duties is the manufacture of
goods. Under the Act, in order to be goods as specified in
the Entry, it was essential that as a result of manufacture
goods must come into existence. For articles to be goods,
these must be known in the market as such or these must be
capable of being sold in the market as goods. Actual sale
792
is not necessary. User in the captive consumption is not
determinative but the articles must be capable of being sold
in the market or known in the market as goods. It is, there-
fore, necessary to find out whether these are goods, that is
to say, articles as known in the market as separate distinct
identifiable commodities and whether the tariff duty levied
would be as specified in the Schedule. Marketability, there-
fore, is an essential ingredient in order to be dutiable
under the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In
that case, the Court found that crude PVC firms as produced
by the appellant were not known in the market and could not
be sold in the market and was not capable of being marketa-
ble. The Court further reiterated that it was the duty of
the revenue to adduce evidence or proof that the articles in
question were goods. The Tribunal went wrong, it was held,
in not applying the test of marketability. There being no
contrary evidence found by the Tribunal in that case, it was
held that in those circumstances, no excise duty should be
charged.
Anil Starch Products Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 18 December, 1984
This affidavit evidence remains uncontradicted- Shri
Ganguly, however, drew our attention to an order of the
Tribunal in M/s. Anil Starch Products Ltd., Ahmedabad v. The
Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad being Appeal No.
ED(SB)(T) 1534/81-D arising out of the Revision Order No.
820/81. He referred to the observations at page 117 of the
Paper Book which dealt with the evidence of one Shri Khabho-
lia, where, according to Shri Ganguly, the Tribunal came to
a different conclusion.
1