Satnam Overseas Ltd. v. CCE

32 GSTR 121Supreme Court of India2015#20468 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2018.

Judgments citing Satnam Overseas Ltd. v. CCE

Asst.C.I.T., Bellary vs. M/S Hothur Traders 100% Eou, Bellary

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for asst

ITA 32/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazita No.32/Bang/2016 (Asst. Years 2010-11 & 2011-12) The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Bellary. . Appellant Vs. M/S Hothur Traders 100% Eou, No.85,6,7&8, Infantry Road, Cantonment, Bellary. . Respondent Pan –Aaefh7705H. Co No.55/Bang/2016 (By Assessee) Appellant By : Shri Nagendra Prasad, Cit Respondent By : Shri B.S Balachandran, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 22-11-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-01-2018

For Appellant: Shri Nagendra Prasad, CITFor Respondent: Shri B.S Balachandran, Advocate
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 40

…urt rendered in the context of the Central Excise Act to decide whether the activity of processing of iron ore constitutes ‘manufacture’ or ‘production’, namely, (i) Maruti Suzuki Ltd., Vs. CCE (2015) 32 GSTR 28 (SC); (ii) Satnam Overseas Ltd., Vs. CCE (2015) 32 GSTR 121 (SC) and (iii) Servo-Med Industries (P) Ltd., Vs. CCE (2015) 32 GSTR 404 (SC) 3.11.3 In the above decisions, the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down certain tests to decide whether a process is ‘manufacture’ or ‘process’. These tests, outlined in the decision in the case of ILC Industries Ltd., (Supra) are as under:- (i) Only that activity as a result o…

M/S Ilc Industries Ltd., Hospet vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1009/BANG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40aSection 80Section 80H

…tion without change in name, character or end-use of goods cannot possibly constitute criteria to decide as to what is manufacturing. ITA No.767 to 771/2014 & 1008- & 1009/Bang/2015 Page 23 of 72 12.8 Again, in the case of Satnam Overseas Ltd. vs. CCE (2015) 32 GSTR 121(SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the process would be treated as ‘manufacture’ only if a new product known to market comes into existence with original product losing its original character. It was held that: “......a distinction has to be drawn between “manufacture” and “marketability”. A duty of excise is levied on the manufacture of ex…

M/S Ilc Industries Ltd., Hospet vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1008/BANG/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40aSection 80Section 80H

…tion without change in name, character or end-use of goods cannot possibly constitute criteria to decide as to what is manufacturing. ITA No.767 to 771/2014 & 1008- & 1009/Bang/2015 Page 23 of 72 12.8 Again, in the case of Satnam Overseas Ltd. vs. CCE (2015) 32 GSTR 121(SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the process would be treated as ‘manufacture’ only if a new product known to market comes into existence with original product losing its original character. It was held that: “......a distinction has to be drawn between “manufacture” and “marketability”. A duty of excise is levied on the manufacture of ex…

M/S Ilc Industries Ltd., Hospet vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 767/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40aSection 80Section 80H

…tion without change in name, character or end-use of goods cannot possibly constitute criteria to decide as to what is manufacturing. ITA No.767 to 771/2014 & 1008- & 1009/Bang/2015 Page 23 of 72 12.8 Again, in the case of Satnam Overseas Ltd. vs. CCE (2015) 32 GSTR 121(SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the process would be treated as ‘manufacture’ only if a new product known to market comes into existence with original product losing its original character. It was held that: “......a distinction has to be drawn between “manufacture” and “marketability”. A duty of excise is levied on the manufacture of ex…

Satnam Overseas Ltd. v. CCE (32 GSTR 121) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax