Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1981 (12) TMI 160

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ty of ₹ 10,000/- The Collector has held that the processed material could not be said to be for use in the appellant s own manufacturing premises as the operations were carried out on behalf of M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant. 2. In the appeal it has been inter alia pleaded that they do not manufacture any goods and merely semi-process some of the steel material for purpose of erection at site. They have also referred to different legal authorities in support of their contention that there was no manufacture as such nor production of any goods to attract duty. In any case they pleaded that there was no case for penalty as they had not knowingly cleared the goods in contravention of the Central Excise Rules. 3. The appellants were heard .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at Calcutta. They also explained that the Collector has not referred to the nature of the goods at all. He has debited the material cost and labour charges for arriving at the value of the products and because of such a basis he has overlooked the fact that the products cannot be described as goods at all. They agreed that in case the next bench has sitting at Calcutta on 14th December, 1981 they would be able to produce their technical personnel at Calcutta. The appellants were again heard at Calcutta on 15-12-1981. Advocate Shri N. Mookherjee appeared for the hearing along with Consultant Shri R.B. Sinha, Chief Engineer, Sri Chandan Bhattacharya and the Law Officer, Shri S.R. Sundra Rajan. He invited attention to the earlier hearing grant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ebster s Dictionary. They pleaded that to be goods the goods should have clear identity and a name commercially known and in the case that requirement is not satisfied. They accordingly pleaded that the orders of the Collector be set aside. 6. The Board has considered the different contentions of the appellants. The Board finds that the Collector s orders do not refer to any specific goods in respect of which the demand for duty has been confirmed. The Board finds that in the S.C.N. issued in this connection there is a reference to different products such as columns, trusses, beams, girders; platforms, sandrails and side-runners, crane rolls etc. many of which are accepted as products of the steel industry and also covered by specific ta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates