Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd.

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

The appeals are allowed and the

…Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd.18 and Cadila Laboratories (P) Ltd. v. CCE19.” 20. Thus, if a product is not saleable, it will not be marketable and consequently the process of manufacture would not be 16 (2005) 4 SCC 337. 17 (1995) 3 SCC 23 18 (1997) 5 SCC 767 19 (2003) 4 SCC 12 2 held to be complete and duty of excise would not be leviable on it. The corollary to the above is that till the time the step of manufacture continues, all the goods used in relation to it will be considered as inputs and thus, entitled to Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Rules. In the present case, as afor…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

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

…sification is, how are the goods known in the market. These tests have been laid down by this Court in a number of judgments including Moti 15 Laminates (P) Ltd. v. CCE (1995) 3 SCC 23, Union of India v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. (1997) 5 SCC 767 and Cadila Laboratories (P) Ltd. v. CCE (2003) 4 SCC 12” 21) In Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer Co. Ltd. vs. Collector of Excise and Customs, (2005) 7 SCC 94, it was held that unless the product is capable of being marketed and is known to those who are in the market, as having an identity as a distinct and identifiable commo…

M/S. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd vs. Commnr. of Central Excise, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed but we

…REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5829 OF 2002 M/S. NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD. ….Appellant Versus COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI ...Respondent JUDGMENT Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. The short question which arises for determination in this Civil Appeal filed by the Assessee under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is whether “Vitamin A Acetate Crude” and “Vitamin A Palmitate” (hereinafter referred to as the product in question) or “Crude Vitamin A” is excisable to duty. 2. The present appeal filed by the appellant – assessee he…

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

…ludes any process incidental or ancillary to 9 the process 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 an…

Bata India Ltd vs. Commnr. of Central Excise, New Delhi

Bench: The Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (For Short ‘The Tribunal). The Member (Judicial) Took The View That The Product Would Not

…Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2377 OF 2002 Bata India Ltd. …. Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi ….Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether unvulcanised sandwiched fabric assembly produced in the Assessee’s factory and captively consumed can be termed as “goods” and can be classified as “rubberized cotton fabrics” falling under sub-heading number 5905.10 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 198…

Commnr. of Central Excise, Chandigarh vs. M/S. Jagatjit Industries Ltd

…such intermediate product is marketed or marketable. For this purpose, the CEGAT has http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3 rightly relied upon the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. [(1997) 5 SCC 767]. The CEGAT has also relied upon the decision in Collector of Central Excise, Baroda v. M/s Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises (P) Ltd. [(1989) 4 SCC 112] for holding that in such cases the burden is on the Department to prove that such goods were either marketed or were marketable. Further, this Court in Collector of Central Excise, Baroda v. United P…