COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VADODRA. vs. M/S DHIREN CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES

C.A. No.-007937-007937 - 1995Supreme Court12 December 20013 pages

For Petitioner: B. KRISHNA PRASADFor Respondent: BINA GUPTA

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the phrase requires excise duty to have been actually paid on the raw material at the correct rate. If no duty was payable or paid on the raw material, the exemption notification would not apply.

What were the facts?

The case involved the interpretation of the phrase "on which the appropriate amount of duty of excise has already been paid" in an exemption notification. This phrase was subject to conflicting interpretations by different benches of the Supreme Court.

What were the issues?

The key legal issue was the interpretation of the phrase "on which the appropriate amount of duty of excise has already been paid" in the context of excise duty exemption notifications.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not applicable

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 7937 of 1995 PETITIONER: COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VADODRA Vs. RESPONDENT: M/S. DHIREN CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/12/2001 BENCH: CJI, Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, U.C. Banerjee, S.N. Variava & Shivaraj V. Patil.

JUDGMENT: WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2496-2497 OF 1992 J U D G M E N T Bharucha, C.J.I.: The case of Dhiren Chemical Industries (Civil Appeal No. 7937 of 1995) has been refe rred by a Bench of three learned Judges to the Constitution Bench because it appeared to the Bench that there was a conflict between the view taken in Collector of Central Excise, Patn a vs. Usha Martin Industries [1997 (7) S.C.C. 47] and the view taken in Motiram Tolaram & An r. Vs. Union of India & Anr. [1999 (6) S.C.C. 375], both being judgments of Benches of three learned Judges. Because of that reference, the other cases (Civil Appeal Nos. 2496-97) we re also so referred.

The only question that we are concerned with relates to the correct interpretation t o be placed upon the phrase "on which the appropriate amount of duty of excise has already b een paid".

In the

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 account Sign 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 →