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

C.T.A.PILLAI, S.KALYANAM
Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise, Guntur – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Srinivasamurthy, Chidambaram,S.K. Choudhury

ORDER

1. By a communication C. No. V/68/30/217/80 T2(PF) dated 18-12-1981, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division II, Visakhapatnam, informed the appellants that lignite cannot be granted the benefit of proforma credit under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, as it is not raw material or component part used in the manufacture of ferroalloys. In dealing with an appeal against this order, the Appellate Collector observed that Lignite (Leco) acts only as a reducing agent in the course of manufacture of ferro-alloys and remains as a flux. He, therefore, concurred in the view of the Assistant Collector that lignite is not entitled to proforma credit under Rule 56A as a raw material. A revision application filed against the order of the Appellate Collector before the Government has been transferred to the Tribunal in terms of Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for being treated as if it were an appeal filed before the Tribunal.

2. The advocate for the appellants explained that 'Leco' is carbon which is accepted as a reducing agent in the recovery of metal from ore and it promotes function of the material in the production of high carbon ferro mangan

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