10. In Bharat Forge & Press Industries (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise

1 SCC 532Reported decision1990#10033 most cited

What is 10. In Bharat Forge & Press Industries (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise authority for?

When there is a conflict between a specific tariff entry and a residuary entry, the specific entry should be preferred. Resort cannot be had to the residuary item if goods can be brought under any specific item by any reasonable process of reasoning.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2005 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Bharat Forge & Press Industries v. Collector of Central Excise · tariff entry · residuary entry · specific entry · conflict between entries · excise duty

Issues it is cited on

section 2(7)section 4(2)section 32ainitial assessment yearfull and true disclosurematerial facts necessary for assessmentsection 80ibkelvinatormere change of opinioneligible businesslive linkincome escaping assessment

Judgments citing 10. In Bharat Forge & Press Industries (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax - 4(1), Indore vs. Prataap Snacks Limited, Indore

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

ITA 374/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…spect of goods specified in Schedule-II(B), the tax would be levied @ 4 per cent, otherwise, it would be placed in the residuary category and would be charged @ 12.5 per cent. 10. In Bharat Forge & Press Industries (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise 1990 1 SCC 532, the Supreme Court held that if there is a conflict between two entries, one leading to an opinion that it comes within the purview of tariff entry and another the residuary entry, the former should be preferred. The Supreme Court further held:- "4. The question before us is whether the department is right in claiming that the items in question are…

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax - 4(1), Indore vs. Prataap Snacks Limited, Indore

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

ITA 373/IND/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…spect of goods specified in Schedule-II(B), the tax would be levied @ 4 per cent, otherwise, it would be placed in the residuary category and would be charged @ 12.5 per cent. 10. In Bharat Forge & Press Industries (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise 1990 1 SCC 532, the Supreme Court held that if there is a conflict between two entries, one leading to an opinion that it comes within the purview of tariff entry and another the residuary entry, the former should be preferred. The Supreme Court further held:- "4. The question before us is whether the department is right in claiming that the items in question are…

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax - 4(1), Indore vs. Prataap Snacks Limited, Indore

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

ITA 372/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…spect of goods specified in Schedule-II(B), the tax would be levied @ 4 per cent, otherwise, it would be placed in the residuary category and would be charged @ 12.5 per cent. 10. In Bharat Forge & Press Industries (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise 1990 1 SCC 532, the Supreme Court held that if there is a conflict between two entries, one leading to an opinion that it comes within the purview of tariff entry and another the residuary entry, the former should be preferred. The Supreme Court further held:- "4. The question before us is whether the department is right in claiming that the items in question are…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - 4(1), Indore vs. Prataap Snacks Limited, Indore

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

ITA 371/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…spect of goods specified in Schedule-II(B), the tax would be levied @ 4 per cent, otherwise, it would be placed in the residuary category and would be charged @ 12.5 per cent. 10. In Bharat Forge & Press Industries (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise 1990 1 SCC 532, the Supreme Court held that if there is a conflict between two entries, one leading to an opinion that it comes within the purview of tariff entry and another the residuary entry, the former should be preferred. The Supreme Court further held:- "4. The question before us is whether the department is right in claiming that the items in question are…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - 4(1), Indore vs. Prataap Snacks Limited, Indore

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

ITA 370/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…spect of goods specified in Schedule-II(B), the tax would be levied @ 4 per cent, otherwise, it would be placed in the residuary category and would be charged @ 12.5 per cent. 10. In Bharat Forge & Press Industries (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise 1990 1 SCC 532, the Supreme Court held that if there is a conflict between two entries, one leading to an opinion that it comes within the purview of tariff entry and another the residuary entry, the former should be preferred. The Supreme Court further held:- "4. The question before us is whether the department is right in claiming that the items in question are…

M/S. Jsw Steel Processing Centres Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(6), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2001/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. K. Kotresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. G. Manoj Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 260ASection 32(1)(iia)

…ied out by the assessee can only be said to be manufacturing a new product. 22. Learned counsel for the Revenue also seeks reliance upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Bharat Forge & Press Industries (P.) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1990] 1 SCC 532. Even the said decision, in our considered view, is inapplicable in the given facts and circumstances. There the assessee was dealing with the process of cutting pipes and tubes in small sizes and shapes, which were though passed through chemical process, but however, there was neither any change in their basic physical properties nor in their end…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Jsw Steel Processing Centres Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed while the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1978/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. K. Kotresh, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Padmameenakshi, JCIT
Section 2(29)(BA)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40

…ied out by the assessee can only be said to be manufacturing a new product. 22. Learned counsel for the Revenue also seeks reliance upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Bharat Forge & Press Industries (P.) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1990] 1 SCC 532. Even the said decision, in our considered view, is inapplicable in the given facts and circumstances. There the assessee was dealing with the process of cutting pipes and tubes in small sizes and shapes, which were though ITA.1978 & 2001/Bang/2017 Page - 13 passed through chemical process, but however, there was neither any change in their basic…

Commnr. of Income Tax, Kerala vs. M/S. Tara Agencies

Appeal is allowed and the

C.A. No.-003568-003568 - 2001Supreme Court09 Jul 2007
For Respondent: M/s Tara Agencies
Section 35B

…to preserve it. The court was of the opinion that in canning the pineapple, the processing is definitely involved but it would not amount to manufacture as no new commodity came into existence. 36. In Bharat Forge and Press Industries vs. CCE (1990) 1 SCC 532, this court observed that tariff item 26-AA(iv) encompasses all sorts of pipes and tubes. It calls for no distinction between pipes and tubes manufactured out of sheets, rods, bars, plates or billets and those turned out from larger pipes and tubes. It is of no consequence whether the pipes and tubes are manufactured by rolling, forging, s…

Hindustan Poles Corporation vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta

Appeals are allowed and show cause

C.A. No.-005572-005573 - 2000Supreme Court27 Mar 2006
For Respondent: Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta
Section 2

…article as a commercially different commodity." This Court came to the conclusion that the goods of the appellant in question were assessable to duty under Tariff Item 26-AA. In Bharat Forge and Press Industries vs. CCE reported in (1990) 1 SCC 532, this Court observed that Tariff Item 26- AA(iv) encompasses all sorts of pipes and tubes. It calls for no distinction between pipes and tubes manufactured out of sheets, rods, bars, plates or billets and those turned out from http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10 larger pipes and tubes. It is of no consequence whether t…

Commnr. of Customs (General), N. Delhi vs. Gujarat Perstorp Electronics Ltd

The appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-008568-008569 - 2001Supreme Court05 Aug 2005
For Respondent: M/s. Gujarat Perstorp Electronics Ltd
Section 28(1)

…question can, by no conceivable process of reasoning, be brought under any of the specific items mentioned in the tariff, resort cannot be had to the residuary item\005" [See also Bharat Forge & Press Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, (1990) 1 SCC 532 : (1990) 45 ELT 525 (sc)] In our considered opinion, all these contentions raised by the assessee have to be dealt with and decided in the light of relevant statutory provisions of the Act and the Rules as also on the basis of decided cases on the point. As CEGAT has disposed of all the appeals merely on the basis of Larger bench decis…

10. In Bharat Forge & Press Industries (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (1 SCC 532) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax