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

H.R.SYIEM, M.SANTHANAM
Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad – Appellant
Versus
Hindustan Aluminium Corporation, Mirzapur – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
V. Zutshi,N.K. Khaitan, Ms. Anjali Vohra

ORDER

H.R. Syiem, Member (T)

1. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Mirzapur has argued his case well, in his order C.No.V. 68(3) Demand/158/82/2797-99 dated 17-7-1984 (there is another date 13-7-84 on the order).

2. He says that cryolite, aluminium flouride, borax, lime cannot be termed raw materials for the purpose of manufacture of aluminium to gain the benefit under notification No. 201/79-CE amended by notification No. 105/82-CE which provides for duty exemption on goods in the manufacture of which any goods falling under item 68 have been used as raw materials or component parts. The exemption is from so much of the duty of excise as is equivalent to the duty of excise already paid on the raw materials or component parts. The reasons he gives for holding that the cryolite, aluminium fluoride and others are not raw materials are reproduced below :-

The term raw material is not defined in the Central Excises & Salt Act, Central Excise Rules or Notification No. 201/79 (as amended). Therefore, we shall have to consider the popular meaning of the words "raw material", the dictionary meaning of "raw material" is Material (often in its natural state) that serves as the starting p

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