BATA INDIA LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI

C.A. No.-002377-002377 - 2002Supreme Court12 April 201015 pages
For Petitioner: RAJAN NARAINFor Respondent: B. KRISHNA PRASAD
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the unvulcanised sandwiched fabric was not an excisable product because the revenue failed to prove its marketability. The product was considered an intermediate material with no distinct commercial identity.

What were the facts?

Bata India Ltd. manufactured an unvulcanised sandwiched fabric for captive consumption in footwear production. The revenue sought to levy excise duty on this intermediate product, claiming it was 'rubberized cotton fabrics' and thus excisable goods.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the intermediate product manufactured for captive consumption qualified as 'goods' under the Central Excise Act, specifically concerning its marketability and commercial identity.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(5)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2377 OF 2002 Bata India Ltd. …. Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi ….Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1.

The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether unvulcanised sandwiched fabric assembly produced in the Assessee’s factory and captively consumed can be termed as “goods” and can be classified as “rubberized cotton fabrics” falling under sub-heading number 5905.10 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 2. The above question came up for consideration before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal). The Member (Judicial) took the view that the product would not attract duty unless it is established that the goods in question is marketable or capable of being marketed as a distinct product and that the Revenue has failed to discharge the burden to prove the marketability and dutiability of the intermediate product in the manufacture of rubber/canvas foot wear. The Member(Technical), however, disagreed w

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →