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

G.SANKARAN, H.R.SYIEM, S.C.JAIN
Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar – Appellant
Versus
Titaghur Paper Mills – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
V. Zutshi,S. Jagdeb

ORDER

H.R. Syiem, Member (T)

1. In his Order No. 11/17/3/24/78, dated 9-4-1978 the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Cuttack Division, said that lime, alum, salt cake and sulphamic acid were not used as raw material or component parts in the manufacture of paper and paperboard and therefore, were not eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 201/79-C.E., dated 4-6-79 amended by Notification No. 105/82-C.E., dated 28-2-1982. The Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta disagreed with the Asstt. Collector and in his Order No. 19/OR/84, dated 25-10-84 directed that the appellants should avail set-off benefit in respect of lime, salt cake, sulphamic acid and alum under the Notification No. 201/79-C.E., dated 4-6-79 provided these inputs and the intermediate products that emerged out of them were not removed outside the factory but fully consumed internally in paper making. We are in agreement with the Appellate Collector and do not think his order needs to be set aside or interfered with.

2. Nor do we agree with the appeal before us that the word "inputs" introduced by Notification No. 105/82-C.E., dated 28-2-82 will make any difference.

3. The learned Counsel for the Titaghur 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