A.P. State Electricity Board v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad

M/s.Shriram Chits Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of income tax

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

Shri. Jagannath S Shetty vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is allowed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice H.P. Sandesh

…would vehemently contend that both the Courts failed to consider Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 23. The counsel also relied upon the judgment in RAM AWADH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS VS. ACHHAIBAR DUBEY AND ANOTHER reported in (2000) 2 SCC 428, wherein also discussion is made with regard to Section 16(c). The counsel also brought to notice of this Court Para No.3, wherein the Apex Court has discussed with regard to the compliance of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and also brought to notice of this Court Para No.6, wherein an observation is made that the 28 o…

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Chelannur Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

…nsible officials presided over by a Chairman or a Member of the Union Public Service Commission, etc. and there is no reason to hold that they would not act in a fair and impartial manner in making selection. In Nutan Arvind v. Union of India & anr. {(1996) 2 SCC 428}, it has been categorically held that when a high level Committee had considered the respective merits of the candidates, assessed the grading and considered their cases for promotion, Courts may not sit over the assessment made by the DPC as an appellate authority. In UPSC v. Hirnyalal Dev & Ors. {(1988) 2 SCC 242} their Lordships…

Commr.of Central Excise vs. M/S Uni Products India Ltd. Through Its Director

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE

…REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 302-303 OF 2009 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III ...APPELLANT VERSUS M/S. UNI PRODUCTS INDIA LTD. ...RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J. These two appeals against the decision of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) rendered on 16th July, 2008 require adjudication on the question as to whether 1 “car matting” would come within Chapter 57 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 under the heading “Carpets and Other Textile Floor Coverings” o…

Pallippuram Village Sesrvice Co-Operative Bank Limited vs. The Income Tax Officer (Intelligence)

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

…nsible officials presided over by a Chairman or a Member of the Union Public Service Commission, etc. and there is no reason to hold that they would not act in a fair and impartial manner in making selection. In Nutan Arvind v. Union of India & anr. {(1996) 2 SCC 428}, it has been categorically held that when a high level Committee had considered the respective merits of the candidates, assessed the grading and considered their cases for promotion, Courts may not sit over the assessment made by the DPC as an appellate authority. In UPSC v. Hirnyalal Dev & Ors. {(1988) 2 SCC 242} their Lordships…

Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Ltd

The appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER

…ailable in the market. Even if 7 the goods are available from only one source or from a specified market, makes no difference so long as they are available for purchasers. (See A.P. State Electricity Board v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad, (1994) 2 SCC 428.) 12. In Escorts Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Faridabad, (2015) 9 SCC 109, this Court has held that for excise duty to be chargeable under the constitutional entry read with Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, two prerequisites are necessary. First, there must be “manufacture” which is understood to mean the bringin…

M/S. Escorts Ltd vs. Commnr. of Central Excise, Faridabad

The appeal is allowed accordingly

…et as such which brings in the concept of marketability in addition to manufacture. A large number of judgments have explained what is meant by marketability in this context. In A.P. State Electricity Board v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad, (1994) 2 SCC 428, this Court referred to a large number of previous judgments. Firstly, it referred to Union v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills. It then referred to South Bihar Sugar Mills Limited V. Union of India, (1968) 3 SCR 21, in which kiln gas which was a mixture of gases generated during a process of burning limestone with coke in a lime kiln was held not t…

M/S. Escorts Ltd vs. Commnr. of Central Excise, Faridabad

The appeal is allowed accordingly

…et as such which brings in the concept of marketability in addition to manufacture. A large number of judgments have explained what is meant by marketability in this context. In A.P. State Electricity Board v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad, (1994) 2 SCC 428, this Court referred to a large number of previous judgments. Firstly, it referred to Union v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills. It then referred to South Bihar Sugar Mills Limited V. Union of India, (1968) 3 SCR 21, in which kiln gas which was a mixture of gases generated during a process of burning limestone with coke in a lime kiln was held not t…

M/S. Flex Engineering Ltd vs. Commnr. of Central Excise, U.P

The appeals are allowed and the

…lity, as this Court has dealt with all relevant cases in A.P. SEB case9. In that case, the question was whether electric poles manufactured with cement and steel for the appellant Board were marketable. After considering 8 (2002) 7 SCC 435 9 (1994) 2 SCC 428 1 various cases on the question of marketability of goods, Jeevan Reddy, J., speaking for the Court, summed up the position thus: (SCC p. 434, para 10) “10. It would be evident from the facts and ratio of the above decisions that the goods in each case were found to be not marketable. Whether it is refined oil (non-deodor…

Madley Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs. Commnr of Central Excise&Customs, Daman

…REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPEALATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3626 OF 2005 Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd. ……….. Appellant Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Daman …………..Respondent WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1354-1355 OF 2010 Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd. ………….. Appellant Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, Gujarat …………..Respondent J U D G M E N T H.L. Dattu, J. 1) A group of three appeals is filed by the appellant – Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd., under Section 35 L (b) of the Central Excise 1 Act, 1944 (hereinafter ref…

Bata India Ltd vs. Commnr. of Central Excise, New Delhi

Bench: The Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (For Short ‘The Tribunal). The Member (Judicial) Took The View That The Product Would Not

…h 8 Judgment of this Court in Union of India vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited AIR 1963 SC 791. This legal position has been reiterated by this Court in A.P. State Electricity Board vs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad (1994) 2 SCC 428 and various other decisions, wherein this Court held that the marketability is essentially a question of fact to be decided on the facts of each case and there can be no generalization, and the fact that goods are not in fact marketed is of no relevance and the question whether they are capable of being marketed. Admittedly, the assessee is n…