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

        <h1>Supreme Court rules wax as raw material, not consumable, denying duty concession to appellant.</h1> <h3>M/s. Meridian Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise</h3> M/s. Meridian Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise - 2015 (325) E.L.T. 417 (SC) Issues Involved:1. Whether the imported wax used in the manufacturing process of cotton yarn by the appellant constitutes 'raw material' or 'consumable'.2. Eligibility of the appellant to avail the benefit of Notification No.8/97-C.E. dated 01.03.1997.Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the imported wax used in the manufacturing process of cotton yarn by the appellant constitutes 'raw material' or 'consumable':The appellant-assessee, engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn as a 100% Export Oriented Undertaking (EOU), used both indigenous cotton and imported wax in the process. The Department argued that the use of imported wax disqualified the appellant from availing the benefit of Notification No.8/97-C.E. because it constituted 'raw material'. The appellant contended that the wax was merely a lubricant and did not form part of the final product, thus should be considered as a 'consumable'.The Commissioner of Central Excise initially ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the wax was a consumable used in the manufacturing process and not a raw material. However, the Tribunal overturned this decision, holding that the wax used in the process satisfied the definition of 'raw material' as it was essential for the production of cotton yarn and formed part of the yarn at the time of clearance.Upon appeal, the Supreme Court examined the definitions provided in the Export and Import Policy 1997-2002:- 'Consumables' are items required for a manufacturing process but do not form part of the end product and are substantially consumed during the process.- 'Raw material' includes any materials required for the manufacturing process, whether in a raw or processed state.The Court emphasized that the determination should focus on the end product of the assessee, which is cotton yarn, not the subsequent product manufactured by the buyer. The Court found that the wax coating was essential for the lubrication and quality of the cotton yarn, making it a raw material rather than a consumable. The wax remained on the yarn to facilitate its winding on cones and its use in knitting hosiery, thus forming part of the end product at the time of clearance.2. Eligibility of the appellant to avail the benefit of Notification No.8/97-C.E. dated 01.03.1997:The Notification No.8/97-C.E. provides a concessional rate of duty for products manufactured by EOUs using only indigenous raw materials. The appellant claimed that the wax should not disqualify them from this benefit as it was not a raw material.The Court referred to various circulars issued by the Ministry of Finance, particularly Circular No.389/22/98-CX, which clarified that the benefit of the notification is not available to units using both imported and indigenous raw materials, but it is available if only imported consumables are used. However, since the Court determined that the wax used by the appellant was a raw material, the appellant did not meet the conditions of the notification.The Court also considered previous judgments, including Vanasthali Textiles Industries Ltd. v. CCE and Ballarpur Industries Ltd., which supported the interpretation that essential ingredients used in the manufacturing process, even if consumed, could be considered raw materials if they are indispensable for the end product.Based on these findings, the Court concluded that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of Notification No.8/97-C.E. as the imported wax used in the manufacturing process constituted a raw material. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found