Hutchison Max Telecom P. Ltd., 2007 SCC OnLine Bom 702. (xi) Saraswati Sugar Mills v. Commissioner

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) vs. M/S WELKIN FOODS

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

…as a base or structure for other machines to be clamped onto them, the shelves themselves would not become an ‘agricultural machine’ or a ‘part’ of one. In the case of Saraswati Sugar Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III, reported in (2014) 15 SCC 625, this Court addressed a similar question: can iron and steel structures supporting a plant be considered component parts of a ‘sugar manufacturing plant’? The Court ruled in the negative. Therefore, subject goods cannot be regarded as a ‘part’ of an Civil Appeal No. 5531 of 2025 Page 13 of 109…

M/S. QUIPPO ENERGY LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AHMEDABAD - II

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

…nd functional i.e., the article would not be able to fulfill its primary function without this component. [See Saraswati Sugar Mills v. Commissioner of Central Civil Appeal Nos. 9418-9420 of 2016 Page 36 of 39 Excise, Delhi- III, reported in (2014) 15 SCC 625, and M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1232]; b. An accessory on the other hand is a component which while not being essential to the primary functioning of the article, is used in conjunction with the article and adds supplemental/secondary value by providing for additional…

M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE III

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

…dia & Ors. V. Municipal Corporation of Delhi etc., 2011 SCC OnLine Del 2003. (viii) Collector of Central Excise v. Hutchison Max Telecom P. Ltd., 2007 SCC OnLine Bom 702. (xi) Saraswati Sugar Mills v. Commissioner of central Excise, Delhi-III, (2014) 15 SCC 625). 9.18. The Bombay High Court after analysing the facts of the present case, in the light of the case laws cited by the contesting parties and relevant provisions of the CENVAT Rules, rejected the contention of the Assessees that they were entitled to credit of the duties paid on these items since BTS is a single integrated system consisti…

M/S DHARTI DREDGING AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, GUNTUR

The appeal is allowed in these terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

…ery with the aid of a guide car resulted in transport vehicle i.e., the guide car being an integral part of the coke oven battery. The Court on that occasion had relied upon previous rulings in Saraswati Sugar Mills vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, (2014) 15 SCC 625). 4 In Saraswati Sugar Mills (supra), the Court had the occasion to deal with what constitutes the word “COMPONENT”. 7. This Court after relying upon Saraswati Sugar Mills (Supra) and taking aid from the dictionaries held that the Guide Car could not be said to be a component of the Coke Oven Battery. It was submitted that by the same analogy,…