Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.25 seconds)Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950
Collector Of Customs & Central Excise, ... vs Paper Products Ltd. on 25 November, 1999
It is also to be noted that the decision in Paper Products case was delivered by the Bench of three Honble Judges of the Supreme Court.
Paras Laminates P. Ltd. vs Cce on 12 August, 2004
In Laminated Packings case, it was held that lamination indisputably amounted to manufacture and consequently the process of lamination of kraft paper with polyethylene, different goods came into being. The decision proceeded on undisputed principle of excise law, that lamination amounted to manufacture besides the fact that the process brought out totally different product from the inputs utilized in manufacture of such product.
Commissioner Of Central Excise-I,New ... vs M/S S.R. Tissues Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 5 August, 2005
20. In fact, the points which are sought to be raised in the matter are no more res-integra. The same already stands concluded by the decision of the Apex Court in CCE, New Delhi-I vs. S.R. Tissues Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2005 (186) ELT 385 (SC) read with the decision in Union of India vs. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. reported in 1998 (97) ELT 5 (SC), CCE, Madras vs. Paper Products Ltd. reported in 2000 (115) ELT 277, CCE, Chennai-II vs. Tarpaulin International reported in 2010 (456) ELT 471 (S.C.)
Union Of India & Ors. Etc vs J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. Etc on 9 December, 1997
In G.T.C. Industries case, the Bombay High Court was dealing with the issue as to whether the embossing and cutting to shape of aluminium foil would be a manufacturing process. Such embossing and cutting to its shape of aluminium foil was essentially for the purpose of packing of cigarettes.
Commnr.Of Central Excise, Chennai-Ii vs M/S. Tarpaulin International on 4 August, 2010
In Tarpaulin International case, the issue before the Apex Court was whether the tarpaulin made-ups which were prepared after cutting and stitching the tarpaulin fabric and fixing the eyelets involved process of manufacture and would fall within the definition of the said term, it was held that the process did not change the basic characteristic of the raw material and the end product. The process did not bring into existence new and distinct product with total transformation in original commodity. The original material used i.e. tarpaulin still remained and was called tarpaulin made-ups even after undergoing the process. Hence, it cannot be said that the process is a manufacturing process. The process of stitching and fixing eyelets would not amounting to manufacture process since tarpaulin after stitching and fixing eyeleting continues to be only cotton fabric. The purpose of fixing eyelets is not to change the fabric. Therefore, even though there is value addition, the same is minimum.
Collector Of Central Excise vs Technoweld Industries on 27 March, 2003
The Bombay High Court after taking into consideration the decisions of the Apex Court in the matter of S.R. Tissues, Mafatlal Industries Ltd. vs. Nadiad Nagar Palika reported in 2000 (117) ELT 290 (SC), Collector vs. Technoweld Industries reported in 2003 (155) ELT 209 (SC) and Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in 1991 (56) ELT 52 (Bom.) held that there was nothing on record to suggest that the cut to shape/ embossed aluminium foils used for packing cigarettes was a distinct marketable commodity. Besides aluminium foil was cut to size in a continuous process and it did not emerge as a new commodity.
Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 May, 1985
The judgments relied upon by the referral Bench are distinguishable from the facts of the present case inasmuch as, in the case of Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., 1985 (21) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), the dispute related to classification of wire rods and not to manufacture thereof and the issue before the Apex Court in Laminated Packings (P) Ltd. v. CCE - 1990 (49) E.L.T. 326 (S.C.) was whether the lamination of duty paid kraft paper amounted to manufacture and the Supreme Court held that the process amounted to manufacture as kraft paper and laminated kraft paper were different distinct commodities. In the present case, however, flexible laminated film in jumbo roll is the same commodity as flexible laminated films in smaller rolls.
Union Of India & Ors vs M/S Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd on 21 February, 2011
In this regard, it would be worthwhile to take note of the recent decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs. Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd. reported in 2011 (265) ELT 3 (SC). Therein the apex Court was dealing with the consequences of wrong availment of credit and liability to pay interest on such credit. The Apex Court after considering the provisions of law held that bare reading of Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules would indicate that the manufacturer or provider of the output service become liable to pay the interest alongwith duty where cenvat credit had been taken or utilized wrongly or has been erroneously refunded and that the provisions of Section 11AB would apply for effecting recovery. While interpreting Rule 14 it was held that:-