SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 1956

K.VENKATASWAMI, S.P.BHARUCHA
Metagraphs Private LTD. – Appellant
Versus
Collector Of Central Excise, Bombay – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Venkataswami, J.-The only question that arises for our consideration in all these Appeals is whether Printed Aluminium Labels (hereinafter referred to as "labels") manufactured by the appellant are products of the printing industry within the meaning of Notification 55/75-CE dated 1.3.1975 (hereinafter called "the Notification") issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

2. It is not in dispute that but for the exemption under the Notification, the labels in question , would fall under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called the "Act"). The relevant portion of the said Notification is extracted below:-

"In exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts goods of the description specified in the Schedule annexed hereto, and falling under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, (I of 1944) from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon.

* * * *

13. All products of the printing industry including newspapers and printed periodicals."

3. It appears that the a
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top