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

1986 Supreme(SC) 110

A.P.SEN, D.P.MADAN, R.S.PATHAK
Union Carbide India LTD. – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent


Advocates:
D.N.Mishra, P.K.RAM KUMAR, PRABHES YADAV, R.N.Poddar, R.THIAGARAJAN, T.M.ANSARI, Y.S.Chitale

Judgment

PATHAK, J.:- This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Allahabad raises the question whether the manufacture of aluminium cans or torch bodies is liable to excise duty under Entry 27(e) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

2. The appellant, The Union Carbide India Limited, is a public limited company and carries on the business of the manufacture and sale of flashlights (torches), dry cell batteries, chemicals and plastics. The flashlights are manufactured by one of its Divisions, the Eveready Flashlight Company, Lucknow. The appellant purchases aluminium slugs from the manufacturers of aluminium in India and produces alummium cans or torch bodies at its factory by a process of extrusion. Before March 1, 1970 aluminium cans were subjected to basic excise duty at 20 per cent ad valorem plus special duty at 20 per cent of the basic duty on a value of Rs. 8,600/- per metric tonne fixed as the tariff value by the Government of India by a Notification dated Jan. 21, 1969. By an amendment incorporated in the Finance Act 1970 with effect from March 1, 1970 the basic duty was fixed at 25 per cent ad valorem plus special duty at 20 per cent o











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