40. In Union of India & Others v. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. & Others

2 SCC 32Reported decision1998#19707 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2025.

Judgments citing 40. In Union of India & Others v. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. & Others

M/S. Quippo Energy Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Ahmedabad - II

C.A. No.-009418-009420 - 2016Supreme Court19 Sept 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

Section 35L

…Court in Delhi Cloth & Civil Appeal Nos. 9418-9420 of 2016 Page 19 of 39 General Mills (supra), has been extensively applied by this Court in its subsequent rulings. 26. In Union of India & Ors v. J.G Glass Industries Ltd & Ors reported in (1998) 2 SCC 32, this Court was dealing with the question whether printing on glass bottles amounts to “manufacture” within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act, 1944. The Court accepted the contention of the respondents that the activity of printing names or logos on the bottles did not change the basic character of the commodity and that the plain bottles…

CIT-7

ITA/190/2015HC Delhi09 Dec 2015

Section 260ASection 32Section 32(1)(iia)

…ustries Limited v. Union of India (1985) 3 SCC 314 to urge that there must be a transformation and that a new and different article must emerge, having a distinctive name, character or use. Further in Union of India v. J.G. Glass Industries Limited (1998) 2 SCC 32 a two-fold test was laid down. It was held that printing on bottles did not amount to manufacture. Reliance was also placed on the decision in Gramophone Co. of India v. Collector of Customs (2000) 1 SCC 549 in which it was held that processing would not qualify as 'manufacture'. The word ‘manufacture’ had to be interpreted “in the context of t…

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

…facturing\024 has been construed and interpreted by this court in order to properly comprehend the subtle distinction between \021manufacturing\022 and \021processing\022. 40. In Union of India & Others v. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. & Others (1998) 2 SCC 32, this Court has laid down a two-fold test for determining whether the process is \021manufacturing\022. First, whether by the said process a different commercial commodity comes into existence or whether the identity of the original commodity ceases to exist. Secondly, whether the commodity which was already in existence will serve no purpose…

Commnr. of Central Excise, Jaipur vs. M/S. Mahavir Aluminium Ltd

The appeal is allowed accordingly with no

C.A. No.-006197-006197 - 2001Supreme Court11 May 2007

For Respondent: M/S MAHAVIR ALUMINIUM LTD

Section 2Section 3

…ticle manufactured must be capable of sale to a consumer. To become goods, an article must be something which can ordinarily come to the market to be bought and be sold. 17. In Union of India & Ors. v. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. & Ors., (1998) 2 SCC 32, leading decisions came to be considered by this Court and it was held that a two fold test emerged for deciding whether the process is that of ’manufacture’. 18. The Court after considering earlier decisions, stated: "On an analysis of the aforesaid rulings, a two-old test emerges for deciding whether the process is that of "ma…