Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.31 seconds)
Belgaum vs Vijaynagar Foods Pvt Ltd on 25 October, 2024 cites

M/S. Escorts Ltd vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, Faridabad on 29 April, 2015

"14. From this judgment, Shri Lakshmikumaran wished to emphasise that, as in the said judgment, Transmission Assemblies were not available in the market for being bought and sold, they were not excisable goods not being marketable. As has correctly been pointed out by Mr. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, what was held in this judgment is that the product should not be known in the market with any commercial name. The moment a product is commercially known in the sense of fulfilling the practical test of being known to persons in the market who buy and sell, the test is satisfied. The fact that the product is generally not bought or sold or has no demand in the market is irrelevant. It was held in the said judgment that the plastic body is not known as a commercially distinct product in the market and, therefore, if a manufacturer is asked to replace such body, it would not be replaceable not being a commercially known product.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 12 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Venkatesh Beverages on 14 December, 2000

10. The Tribunal in the case of CCE v/s Venkatesh Bevarages - 2001(128) EL T 75 held sugar solution at intermediate stage containing less than 65% sugar by weight should not be considered as sugar solution. In the instant case, the sugar content is 78.2%. The sugar syrup/solution prepared by the party and used by them in the manufacture of biscuits, on a reasonable presumption would have been made with due care by selecting sucrose carefully and by use of water clean from foreign substances and in clean vessels. Such sugar syrup solution made by mixing of sugar sucrose to water and fit enough to be used in biscuits of the kind and brand that have been referred to, also does not appear to suffer from being rendered not marketable on account of it failing to meet the requirements of law regulating its use and exchange. The Ingredients of Parle-G biscuits as listed by the manufacturer are Wheat Flour, Sugar, Partially Hydrogenated Edible Vegetable Oils, Invert Syrup (d Glucose, Laevulose), Leavening Agents [503 (ii), 500 (ii)), Salt, Milk Solids, Emulsifiers [322 or 471 & 481 (i)) and Dough Conditioners [223 land added Flavors (Artificial)."
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 0 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

A.P. State Electricity Board vs Collector Of Central Excise, Hyderabad on 1 February, 1994

"11. The next question for consideration is whether actual marketing of the perfumery compound manufactured by the respondent is necessary for the levy of excise duty. It is settled that to hold the product as excisable/dutiable, actual marketing/sale of goods is not necessary. What is required to be proved is that the capability of marketing the product. Marketability is decisive test for dutiability. Whether the goods are, in fact, marketed or not is of no relevance. It is also not necessary that goods in question should be generally available in the market. Even if the goods are available from only one source or from a specified market, makes no difference so long as they are available for purchasers. [See A.P. State Electricity Board v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad, (1994) 2 SCC 428 = 1994 (70) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)].
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 66 - B P Reddy - Full Document
1   2 Next