Back
1996 Supreme(SC) 1659
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S P Bharucha, Suhas C Sen
SUBHARAJ & CO., APPELLANT
VERSUS
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RESPONDENT.
Civil Appeals Nos. 5492-93 of 1985, decided on October 9, 1996.
The process of obtaining bone meal from raw animal bones constitutes manufacturing and is excisable under the Central Excise Tariff.
Headnote:
Excise Duty - Manufacturing of Bone Meal - Finding of Fact
Fact of the Case:
The appellants purchase raw animal bones and crush them to obtain bone meal, which is sold as a fertiliser.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal concluded that the process of crushing bones to obtain bone meal amounted to manufacturing, making it excisable under the Central Excise Tariff. The matter regarding exemption under a notification was remanded for further consideration.
Issues: Manufacturing of bone meal, excisability under the Central Excise Tariff, and exemption under a notification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the process of obtaining bone meal from raw animal bones constituted manufacturing and was excisable under the Central Excise Tariff. The matter of exemption under a notification was remanded for fresh consideration.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and no order was made regarding costs.
ORDER
1. The appellants purchase raw animal bones and break and crush them in a mechanical device called a disintegrator. The bone meal so obtained is sold, for use principally as a fertiliser. The Tribunal, having gone into the process by which the bones are crushed, came to the conclusion that bone meal was the result of manufacture and, therefore, excisable under the residuary Entry 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. This is a finding of fact relating to the process employed by the appellants and no interference a therewith would be warranted.
2. The appellants claimed exemption under an exemption notification which had not been considered by the authorities. For this purpose the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector to decide afresh the appellants liability to pay excise duty. This is not impugned.
3. The appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
