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

1990 Supreme(Mad) 1011

S.RAMALINGAM
Computer Graphics Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


Appearing Advocates:Habibullah Badsha, S. Subramanian, K. Jayachanan, Advocates.

Judgment :-

Petitioner imports from abroad Jumbo rolls of Graphic art films after payment of customs duty and auxiliary duty. Thereafter, the jumbo rolls are slit into various widths such as 20', 30' and 40' and cut into various lengths of 10 feets 200 feet etc. and packed in separate cartons and marketed in India.

2.In Section 11 under the Heading 37 of the Central Excise Tariff, photographic and cinematographic rules are specified.

3.On 28-7-1987, the third respondent called upon the petitioner to take out a Central Excise licence stating that the process of slitting and cutting of jumbo roll films into smaller sizes would amount of to "manufacture". While the petitioner was agitating the validity of this direction by the third respondent, the Central Board of Excise and Customs (second respondent) issued a clarification in their letter F. No. 11/1/88 CX. 3, dated 5-9-1988. The second respondent clarified that the process of cutting into smaller sizes and repacking of jumbo rolls of sensitised photographic paper on which the customs duty including C.V. duty was paid would not amount to "manufacture" for the purpose of levying Central Excise duty. In view of this clarification, the


















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