| Case ID |
e11db109-d8d1-4c3d-a7e9-e8a553b51ef0 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Appeal No.468 of 1988 |
| Decision Date |
Mar 28, 1988 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal filed by the Collector, Central Excise, Madras, against the decision of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT). The Tribunal had concluded that the conversion of timber logs into sawn timber did not result in a new product, thus excise duty was not applicable. The Court emphasized that excise duty is chargeable only when a new and different article emerges with a distinct name, character, and use. The Court upheld the Tribunal's findings, affirming that the principles for determining 'manufacture' were correctly applied in this case, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Collector, Central Excise, Madras vs. Messrs Kutty Flush Doors and Furniture Co. (P) Ltd., the Supreme Court of India addressed the interpretation of 'manufacture' under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The case revolved around the classification of sawn timber and whether it constituted a new product liable for excise duty. The Court reiterated that excise duty is only applicable when a transformation occurs, resulting in a product with a distinct name, character, and use. This ruling is significant for manufacturers and businesses dealing with timber and similar products, as it clarifies the criteria for excise duty applicability. The decision is a critical reference for ongoing discussions about manufacturing processes and tax obligations within the industry. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of India
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Sabyasachi Mukharji,
S. Ranganathan
|
| Lawyers |
G. Ramaswami, Additional Solicitor General,
Ms. Indu Malhotra,
Mrs. Sushma Suri
|
| Petitioners |
Collector, Central Excise, Madras
|
| Respondents |
Messrs Kutty Flush Doors and Furniture Co. (P) Ltd.
|
| Citations |
1989 SLD 1042,
1989 MLD 3323
|
| Other Citations |
Sanghvi Enterprises, Jammu, Tawi v. Collector of Central - Excise, Chandigarh, (1984) 16 ELT 317,
Moideen Kunhi v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, (1986) 23 ELT 293,
Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills, 1963 Supp. (1) SCR 586,
South Bihar Sugar Mills Ltd. etc. v. Union of India, (1968) 3 SCR 21,
Allenburry Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Ramakrishna Dalmia, (1973) 2 SCR 257,
State of Orissa v. The Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd., (1985) 3 SCR 26
|
| Laws Involved |
Central Excise and Salt Act, (I of 1944)
|
| Sections |
3,
35B
|