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

2005 Supreme(SC) 98

S.H.KAPADIA, A.R.LAKSHMANAN, S.N.VARIAVA
Camlin LTD. – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai – Respondent


Order

In all these Appeals the questions which arise for consideration are : (1) whether the intermediate product manufactured by Camlin Limited is marketable and (2) if it is marketable then whether the product is to be classified under Chapter Heading 32.04 or 96.09.

2. As regards marketability, the Depart­ment has led evidence to show that one of the competitors of the Appellants i.e. Luxor Pen Co. was purchasing and importing into India a product, which according to the Department, is an identical product to the intermediate product manu­factured by Camlin Limited. If the product which was so purchased and imported by Luxor Pen Co. is an identical product then the Department would have succeeded in showing marketability of this product. There­fore, the main thrust of the argument, on behalf of Camlin Ltd., has been that the product imported by Luxor is not the same product but a completely different product.

3. At this stage it, therefore, becomes necessary to see what is the product of Camlin Ltd. and what was the product imported by Luxor. It is an admitted position that the intermediate product is manufactured by Camlin Ltd. by thoroughly mixing in a jacket of vessel plastic po
































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