Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Tribunal deems polycoating of kraft paper as "manufacture" under Central Excises Act. Refund claims' timeliness ruled irrelevant.

        COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD Versus UMA LAMINATED PRODUCTS (P) LTD.

        COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD Versus UMA LAMINATED PRODUCTS (P) LTD. - 1984 (17) E.L.T. 187 (Tribunal) Issues Involved:
        1. Validity and timeliness of the show cause notice.
        2. Whether polycoating/polylamination of kraft paper amounts to "manufacture" u/s 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
        3. Classification of polycoated/polylaminated paper under Item No. 17(2) C.E.T.
        4. Whether the finished products attract duty under sub-item (2) of Item 17 C.E.T.
        5. Respondent's right to challenge the levy after availing concessional duty.
        6. Timeliness of the refund claims.
        7. Appellate Collector's authority to allow refunds beyond the prescribed time-limit.
        8. Entitlement for refund duty and the concept of unjust enrichment.
        9. Whether settled practice of duty levy could be unsettled by the Appellate Collector.

        Summary:

        Issue No. (i): Validity and Timeliness of the Show Cause Notice
        The Tribunal concluded that the show cause notice issued on 21-7-1981 was valid and within the one-year limitation period prescribed u/s 36(2) of the Act. The corrigendum issued later did not vitiate the legality of the original notice. The Tribunal also found that the Central Government had sufficient material to initiate the review proceedings, thus rejecting the contention that the notice was invalid due to lack of records.

        Issue No. (ii), (iii), and (iv): Manufacture and Classification under Item 17(2) C.E.T.
        The Tribunal held that the process of polycoating/polylamination of kraft paper amounted to "manufacture" u/s 2(f) of the Act, as it resulted in a product with a distinct name, character, and use. Consequently, polycoated/polylaminated paper was classifiable under Item No. 17(2) C.E.T. The Tribunal emphasized that the legislative intent, as evidenced by contemporaneous documents, was to charge duty on treated papers even if made from duty-paid base papers.

        Issue No. (v): Concessional Duty and Right to Challenge Levy
        The Tribunal did not find it necessary to address this issue in detail, given the conclusions on the previous issues.

        Issue Nos. (vi) and (vii): Timeliness of Refund Claims
        Given the Tribunal's conclusion that the products were dutiable under Item 17(2) C.E.T., the question of whether the refund claims were filed within the prescribed time-limit became moot.

        Issue No. (viii): Entitlement for Refund Duty and Unjust Enrichment
        The Tribunal did not consider this issue, as it was rendered irrelevant by the findings on the classification and dutiability of the products.

        Issue No. (ix): Settled Practice of Duty Levy
        The Tribunal noted that it was not necessary to answer this question in the abstract. However, it emphasized the importance of not rendering statutory notifications meaningless, thus supporting the consistency of the duty levy practice.

        Conclusion:
        The appeal was allowed, the impugned Order-in-Appeal was set aside, and the Assistant Collector's orders were restored.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found