South Bihar Sugar Mills Limited v. Union of India

3 SCR 21Reported decision1968#17581 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2015.

Judgments citing South Bihar Sugar Mills Limited v. Union of India

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

The appeal is allowed accordingly

C.A. No.-006561-006561 - 2004Supreme Court29 Apr 2015

…lector 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 to be a marketable commodity. Since it was a mixture of gases and not only carbon dioxide, it was clear that it was not known to the market as such. Carbon dioxide was only a component of kiln 13 Page 14 JUDGMENT g…

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

The appeal is allowed accordingly

C.A. No.-006561-006561 - 2004Supreme Court29 Apr 2015

…lector 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 to be a marketable commodity. Since it was a mixture of gases and not only carbon dioxide, it was clear that it was not known to the market as such. Carbon dioxide was only a component of kiln 13 Page 14 JUDGMENT g…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

ITTA/227/2011HC Telangana27 Jun 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

M/S Titanor Components Ltd vs. CIT & Anr

ITA - 24 / 1999HC Delhi04 Feb 2011
For Appellant: Mr.C.S. Jain and Mr. G. Tushar Rao, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate
Section 260ASection 80Section 80I

…several decisions. We do not wish to burden the judgment with all those cases; however only to highlight the contours of this principle we intend to refer to the following two judgments. 12.3 First being: South Bihar Sugar Mills Ltd. vs UOI & Ors. (1968) 3 SCR 21. In South Bihar Sugar Mills (supra) case [in which Delhi Cloth Mills (Supra) was cited with approval] the Supreme Court after analyzing the scientific evidence put forth both 2011:DHC:692-DB by the assessee and the department came to the conclusion that, in manufacture of sugar, kiln gas was produced by the assessee, which was not carbon die…

Commnr.of Central Excise, Chennai-II vs. M/S. Tarpaulin International

C.A. No.-005341-005341 - 2005Supreme Court04 Aug 2010

…of manufactured product. This Court has in several judgments starting from Tungabhadra Industries v. CTO, [(1961) 2 SCR 14], Union of India v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co.Ltd., [(1997) 5 SCC 767], South Bihar Sugar Mills v. Union of India, [(1968) 3 SCR 21] and line of other judgments have explained the meaning of the expression ‘Manufacture’. In all these judgments, this court has observed that “manufacture implies a change, but every change is not a manufacture and yet every change in an article is the result of treatment, labour and manipulation. But something more is necessary....... There…