Jaipur v. Rajasthan State Chemical Works (1991) 4 SCC 473, Collector of Central Excise v. Technoweld Industries

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. New Bombay Goods Transport

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai vs. M/S. Australian Foods India Private Ltd

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside, leaving the

…livered a judgment in CCE v. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders, (2004) 11 SCC 801 wherein we have held in respect of another notification containing identical words that it makes no difference whether the goods on 3 (2004) 11 SCC 801 4 (2004) 11 SCC 798 1 Page 16 JUDGMENT which the trade name or mark is used are the same in respect of which the trade mark is registered. Even if the goods are different, so long as the trade name or brand name of some other company is used the benefit of the notification would not be available. Further, in our view, once a trade name o…

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai vs. M/S. Australian Foods India Private Ltd

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside, leaving the

…livered a judgment in CCE v. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders, (2004) 11 SCC 801 wherein we have held in respect of another notification containing identical words that it makes no difference whether the goods on 3 (2004) 11 SCC 801 4 (2004) 11 SCC 798 1 Page 16 JUDGMENT which the trade name or mark is used are the same in respect of which the trade mark is registered. Even if the goods are different, so long as the trade name or brand name of some other company is used the benefit of the notification would not be available. Further, in our view, once a trade name o…

Commnr. of Central Excise, Surat-I vs. M/S. Favourite Industries

…JUDGMENT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.949 OF 2004 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SURAT-I APPELLANT VERSUS M/S.FAVOURITE INDUSTRIES RESPONDENT W I T H C.A.NO.3588 OF 2005 C.A.NO.3638 OF 2006 C.A.NO.1388 OF 2008 O R D E R For the sake of convenience, we take the facts in C.A.NO.949/2004, for disposal of these appeals. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 1 JUDGMENT 'the Tribunal'), Mumb…

Commnr. Central Excise, Delhi vs. M/S. Ace Auto Comp. Ltd

The appeal is allowed; the

…sion that there was no material to prove that the brand name “TATA ACE” belonged to another person, is clearly a misconstruction of para 4 of the notifications in question and therefore, its decision deserves to be set aside. 1 (2005) 1 SCC 526 2 (2004) 11 SCC 798 5 9. Mr. S.K. Bagaria, learned senior counsel, appearing as Amicus Curiae, submitted that the Tribunal has rightly concluded that there was no evidence to prove that the brand name “TATA ACE” belonged to another person, and the said finding of fact deserves to be affirmed as it has not been specifically challenged by the Revenue. Learned co…

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

Appeal is allowed and the

…e in relation to the manufacture.\024 46. In the following cases, this court has dealt with and construed the terms \023manufacturing\024, \023production\024 and \023processing\024. Collector of Central Excise v. Technoweld Industries (2003) 11 SCC 798, Metlex (I) (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi (2005) 1 SCC 271, Aman Marble http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 16 Industries (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur (2005) 1 SCC 279 and Shyam Oil Cake Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur (2005) 1 SCC 264, South Bihar Sugar Mills Ltd.…

Hindustan Poles Corporation vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta

Appeals are allowed and show cause

…levying double duty on the same product. This Court further observed that merely because an item falls under Tariff Entry, it cannot be presumed or deemed that there is manufacture. In the case of CCE vs. Technoweld Industries reported in (2003) 11 SCC 798, the question was whether drawing of wires wire rods amounted to manufacture. It was held that both the products were wires and merely because they were covered by two separate entries did not mean that the product was excisable. It was held that in the absence of any manufacture the product did not become excisable merely because there w…

M/S. Compack Pvt. Ltd vs. Commnr. of Cent. Ex. & Customs, Vadodara

The appeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent

…They must be interpreted on their own wording. Wordings of some other notification are of no benefit in construing a particular notification\005" The said decision was followed in Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I vs. Mahaan Dairies (2004) 11 SCC 798]. Keeping in view the principles laid down in the aforementioned decisions, we have to construe the exemption notification in question. The said notification was issued in terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. By reason thereof , printed carton, boxes, containers and cases whether in assembled or unassembled co…