9911796707
TMI BlogFriction cloth coming into existence at intermediary stage of the process of the manufacture of transmission of TR Beltings/V Belts and Conveyer Belts is a marketable commodityX X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... round that there is no clear finding against the contention of the department tat the friction cloth coming into existence at intermediary stage of the process of the manufacture of transmission of TR Beltings / V Belts and Conveyer Belts is a marketable commodity. The Department considers the said friction cloth as marketable commodity. The Department considers the said friction cloth as marketable and excisable product. A copy of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is enclosed and this may be sorupulously followed where there is different practice of assessment of friction cloth in the field formations. F.No.59/2/97-CX.1 In the Supreme Court of India Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Civil Appeal No.348 of 1984. (Appeal by Special ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court, New Delhi, dated this the 5th day November, 1996. Sd/- (R.P. Dua) Joint Registrar In the Supreme Court of India Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Civil Appeal No. 4348 of 1984 Union of India & Other ... Appellants Versus M/s Punjab Rubber & Allied Industries & Others ... Respondents ORDER The respondent-industries filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Civil Writ No. 4459 of 1980, seeking an appropriate writ for declaring, that friction cloth and intermediate products produced by them in the process of manufacture of T.R. Beltings/ V. Belts and Conveyer Belts were not liable to excise duty under item 19(1)(b) of the Central Excise Tariff and for certain other incidental and consequential relief's. Entry 19 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and even if some article styled as 'Friction Cloth' comes into existence at an intermediary stage, the Department is not justified in demanding excise duty on the said product, especially when it is nobody's case that this intermediary product is used or sold by the petitioners in the marker. It is obvious from the afore-quoted finding recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court that it overlooked the fact that it was the Department's contention that the it was sold in the market or was having a market. It is, therefore, obvious that the Division Bench of the high Court proceeded on an erroneous assumption that it was nobody's case that this intermediary product was used or sold in the market. when it was contended by the Department t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
