Union Carbide India Ltd. v. Union of India

M/S Bharti Airtel Ltd vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune III

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

…become known as the test of marketability which has been reiterated by this Court in CCE v. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises [(1989) 4 SCC 112 : 1989 SCC (Tax) 162 : (1989) 43 ELT 214] . The Court has held in Union Carbide India Ltd. v. Union of India [(1986) 2 SCC 547 : 1986 SCC (Tax) 443] that even if the goods was capable of being brought to the market, it would satisfy the test of marketability. The basic test, therefore, of levying duty under the Act is twofold. One, that any article must be goods and second, that it should be marketable or capable of being brought to market. Goods which are attached to…

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

The appeal is allowed accordingly

…t it was not known to the market as such. Carbon dioxide was only a component of kiln 13 Page 14 JUDGMENT gas, the content of which ranged from 27 to 36.5%. The Court also referred to the decision in Union Carbide India Limited v. the Union of India, (1986) 2 SCC 547, in which aluminum cans in crude form used as a torch bodies were held to be not capable of sale to a consumer in their crude and unfinished form. To be made saleable, such cans would have to undergo various processes such as, trimming, threading and re-drawing. The Court also referred to Bhor Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay…

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

The appeal is allowed accordingly

…t it was not known to the market as such. Carbon dioxide was only a component of kiln 13 Page 14 JUDGMENT gas, the content of which ranged from 27 to 36.5%. The Court also referred to the decision in Union Carbide India Limited v. the Union of India, (1986) 2 SCC 547, in which aluminum cans in crude form used as a torch bodies were held to be not capable of sale to a consumer in their crude and unfinished form. To be made saleable, such cans would have to undergo various processes such as, trimming, threading and re-drawing. The Court also referred to Bhor Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay…

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

The appeals are allowed and the

…es “not marketable” are different, however, they are not exhaustive. It is difficult to lay down a precise test to determine marketability of articles. Marketability of goods has certain attributes. The 10 AIR 1963 SC 791 11 AIR 1968 SC 922 12 (1986) 2 SCC 547 13 (1989) 1 SCC 602 14 (1989) 4 SCC 112 1 essence of marketability is neither in the form nor in the shape or condition in which the manufactured articles are to be found, it is the commercial identity of the articles known to the market for being bought and sold. The fact that the product in question is generally not being bought an…

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

…s makes it clear that to become goods an article must be something which can ordinarily come to the market to be bought or sold”. 9 10) A three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Union Carbide India Ltd. v. Union of India, (1986) 2 SCC 547 has discussed the concept of ‘marketability’ in order for the Revenue to impose excise duty as under: “6. It does seem to us that in order to attract excise duty the article manufactured must be capable of sale to a consumer. Entry 84 of List I of Schedule VII to the Constitution specifically speaks of “duties of excise on tobacco an…

M/S. White Machines vs. Commnr. of Central Excise, Delhi

…I.castings. Counsel for the assessee relied upon a number of judgments to contend that unless the intermediary product is marketable, excise duty could not be levied. (cases refer red: Union Carbide India Ltd. vs. Union of India & Others reported in (1986) 2 SCC 547; Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer Co. Ltd. vs. Collector of Excise & Customs reported in (2005) 7 SC C 94). In the absence of any finding recorded by the Tribunal regarding marketability, we a re handicapped and cannot proceed with the case any further. Accordingly, we accept this appeal; set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal a…

Commnr. of Central Excise, Jaipur vs. M/S. Mahavir Aluminium Ltd

The appeal is allowed accordingly with no

…s own character and name whether be it the result of one process or several processes, ’manufacture’ takes place and liability to excise duty under Section 4 is attracted. 16. In Union Carbide India Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., (1986) 2 SCC 547, this Court held that in order to attract Excise Duty, the article manufactured must be capable of sale to a consumer. To become goods, an article must be something which can ordinarily come to the market to be bought and be sold. 17. In Union of India & Ors. v. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. & Ors., (1998) 2 SCC 32, leading decisions…