Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
410 judgments · newest first · showing 401–410
The case concerned two composite textile mills that manufactured cotton yarn in their weaving departments and used it captive in their spinning departments to produce fabric. An exemption notification dated 18 June 1977 exempted such yarn from excise duty, but a later notification dated 15 July 1977 …
The Collector of Central Excise, Bombay appealed against the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal's decision that the distillation and recrystallisation processes undertaken by Mis. S.D. Fine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. did not constitute "manufacture" for excise purposes. The Tribunal was …
Mis Punjab Footwear Ltd. (appellant) manufactured footwear partly in its own factory and partly through Mis Stepwell Industries Ltd. under a licence agreement that allowed Stepwell's workers to operate machines and use electricity within the appellant's premises. The appellant claimed exemption from …
Indian Tool Manufacturers produced carbide "throw‑away" inserts that were initially classified under Tariff Item 68, later under Item 51A(iii) after an amendment, and subsequently re‑classified by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise as Item 62 (Tool Tips). The manufacturer appealed the …
Rollatainers Ltd., a manufacturer of printed cartons, claimed exemption from central excise duty under Notification No. 55/75, which exempts "all products of the Printing Industry". The Superintendent of Central Excise held that printed cartons are products of the Packaging Industry and not eligible …
The petitioners, manufacturers of vegetable oil, challenged the levy and collection of the vegetable oils cess for the period 1 March 1986 to 31 March 1987, contending that the Finance Minister’s 1986 budget speech and a subsequent Directorate of Vanaspati letter had dispensed with the cess and that …
The Barnagore Jute Factory and other jute manufacturers challenged the levy of a cess on jute yarn and twine under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, arguing that jute yarn was not covered by Heading 23(2) of the First Schedule, that intermediate products could not be taxed, and …
Frick India Ltd., a licensed manufacturer of air‑conditioning and refrigeration equipment, cleared cooling coils, condensers and compressors for cold‑storage and ice‑factory plants and paid excise duty under Tariff Item 29A(3). The company claimed a refund, arguing that these parts were not …
The Supreme Court clarified the method of computing the assessable value of processed fabric for Central Excise duty. It held that the assessable value equals the value of the grey cloth in the processor's possession plus the value of the job‑work performed and the processor's manufacturing profit …
The respondents, each owning no more than four powerlooms acquired from licensed manufacturers, claimed exemption from excise duty on cotton fabrics under Item 7 of the 1957 exemption notification. The Central Government had introduced a series of provisos, the third of which (effective 1 April …
