Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.18 seconds)Amrit Vanaspati Co. Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 13 January, 1987
(4) Amrit Vanaspati Co. v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut -1988 (35) E.L.T. 479 (Tri.) - Wherein Nickel Catalyst activated carbon and phosphoric acid are held not to be raw material or components. But then this citation also does not help the contention of the Revenue.
Section 16 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Ballarpur Industries Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 24 February, 1984
(1) Ballarpur Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi -1989 (21) ECR 33 (Cegat SB-C) wherein, with reference to 7 items, it was held that all those inputs were essentially required for the manufacture of the product, in question, in that case (namely, paper or paper board). So, according to Shri Chakravorty, this is the criteria laid down by the Tribunal. But, in the present case also, as we discussed above, vitamins, especially, Vitamin 'A' is a necessary ingredient as it is a statutory requirement for manufacture of the product, in question. So, this judgment does not help the Revenue.
Panyam Cements And Mineral Industries ... vs Collector Of Central Excise on 24 May, 1984
(2) Panyam Cements & Mineral Industries Limited, Ballary v. Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum -1989 (13) E.T.R. 181 (Tri.) - In this case, the issue was dutiability of calcium carbide manufactured by the assessee and used by them in the manufacture of 'Acetylene Black'. It was contended by the assessee that the 'goods' were not marketable without being packed into airtight drums in accordance with the provisions of Carbide of Calcium Rules 1937 and so unless the product is marketable, it will not attract central excise duty. The Tribunal negatived this contention holding that manufacture of calcium carbide is complete after the process of seiving is carried out and at this stage it is a finished product which is either used for captive consumption (as in the case of the assessee) or it is sold in the market. For the purpose of captive consumption, it need not be packed in accordance with the provisions referred to above. But, that would not mean that as it is not marketable, it is not 'goods'. It will attract C.E. duty. This authority also does not help the Revenue because, in the present case, there is no question of captive consumption and product will be marketable only after vitamins are added.
Ojas Corporation vs Collector Of Central Excise on 17 December, 1987
(3) OJAS Corporation v. Collector of Central Excise, Baroda -1988 (35) E.L.T. 189 (Tri.) wherein it was held that when the soap is manufactured in the form of blocks, the product then emerges is soap and the process of cutting into chips cannot be taken as a process in the manufacture of soap. But, here also, the issue is different and this citation also does not help the Revenue.
1