1997 (7) TMI 244

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Respondents. [Order per : G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)]. - The short point to be considered in this appeal is whether "edge trimming and shots" arising during the manufacture of ceramic wool and articles thereto are chargeable to duty. The Assistant Collector held that the edge trimmings are chargeable to duty at 15% Adv. under Heading 68.03. It was contended on behalf of the party that the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Gayatri Glass Works, reported in 1988 (33) E.L.T. 124 (Tribunal) which has followed the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. A.K. Bandyopadhyay & Others, reported in 1980 E.L.T. 146. 2. Arguing for the Revenue Shri Jain submitted that not being satisfied with the view taken by the Tribunal in the case of Gayatri Glass Work .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ring ceramic wool and articles thereof but not emerged in the manufacture of edge trimmings shots. These items do arise during the course of manufacture of ceramic wools and articles thereof. The Supreme Court has taken the view that in order to levy duty of excise on substance, the substance should satisfy the definition of goods and it must emerged out of a process called manufacture no substant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X