COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S. JAGATJIT INDUSTRIES LTD

C.A. No.-007769-007769 - 2001Supreme Court15 March 20023 pages
For Respondent: V. BALACHANDRAN
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the process of propagating yeast with molasses and water for captive consumption in liquor manufacturing did not constitute the manufacture of marketable yeast. The burden was on the department to prove marketability, which was not discharged.

What were the facts?

The revenue challenged a CEGAT order dismissing their appeals. The core issue was whether yeast propagated by the respondents, with a short self-life and used for manufacturing potable liquor, was excisable to central excise duty.

What were the issues?

Whether the intermediate product of propagated yeast, used for captive consumption in liquor manufacturing, is considered 'manufactured' and 'marketable' for excise duty purposes.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Central Excise Tariff Act, Heading 21.02

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 7769 of 2001 Appeal (civil) 8460-8483 of 2001 PETITIONER: THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH-II, CHANDIGARH. Vs. RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH-I, CHANDIGARH. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/03/2002 BENCH: M.B. Shah & B.N. Agrawal

JUDGMENT: Shah, J.

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh has challenged the order dated 8th May 2000 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short referred to as "CEGAT") in Appeal No.E/3084/99-D etc., by which the Tribunal dismissed the appeals preferred by the revenue involving the common question whether the respondents were engaged in the manufacturing/propagation of yeast leviable to central excise duty.

Hence, these appeals.

Therefore, the short question involved in these appeals is whether the ’yeast’ propagated by the respondents having self-life of 6-8 hours which can be preserved in containers was excisable to the customs duty under description of heading 21.02 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Tariff Heading 21.02 reads thus: - Heading Sub-

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 →