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>High Court overturns Tribunal decision, rules Assessee liable for excise duty on 'Harrison' locks</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Central Excise Lucknow Versus M/s R.P. Locks Company, Aligarh and others</h3> Commissioner of Central Excise Lucknow Versus M/s R.P. Locks Company, Aligarh and others - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding the Assessee not a manufacturer of 'Harrison' brand locks.2. Whether the definition of 'manufacturer' in Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, includes the activities referred to in question 1.3. Whether the Tribunal's judgment is sustainable without reversing the findings of the Commissioner of Central Excise.4. Whether the judgment in CCE, Baroda Vs. M.M. Khambhatwala is applicable to this case.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding the Assessee not a manufacturer of 'Harrison' brand locks:The Tribunal held that the Assessee was engaged in processes like branding, polishing, affixing MRP, and packing locks, which do not constitute manufacturing as they do not result in bringing a new commodity into existence. However, the High Court found that the Assessee supplied raw materials and parts to artisans or other industries for assembling locks. The artisans were paid labor charges and the assembled locks were subjected to further processes like electroplating, riveting, and engraving, which required power. The Court concluded that the Assessee controlled the entire process of manufacturing locks, and thus, should be considered a manufacturer.2. Whether the definition of 'manufacturer' in Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, includes the activities referred to in question 1:The Court examined the definition of 'manufacturer' under Section 2(f) of the Act and relevant case laws. It emphasized that 'manufacture' implies bringing into existence a new and different article with a distinctive name, character, or use. The Court cited various precedents, including Union of India Vs. Delhi Cloth & General Mills and Rajasthan State Electricity Board Vs. Associated Stone Industries, to support the view that the Assessee's activities, which transformed raw materials into marketable locks, constituted manufacturing.3. Whether the Tribunal's judgment is sustainable without reversing the findings of the Commissioner of Central Excise:The Tribunal's judgment was found unsustainable as it did not reverse the Commissioner's findings, which were based on substantial evidence. The Commissioner had detailed the manufacturing process and the Assessee's role in it, concluding that the Assessee was a manufacturer. The High Court held that the Tribunal ignored these facts and took an erroneous view.4. Whether the judgment in CCE, Baroda Vs. M.M. Khambhatwala is applicable to this case:The Tribunal applied the judgment in CCE, Baroda Vs. M.M. Khambhatwala, but the High Court found the facts of the present case different. In Khambhatwala, the activities did not result in a new product, whereas in the present case, the Assessee's activities resulted in the creation of new marketable locks. Therefore, the High Court held that the Tribunal's reliance on Khambhatwala was misplaced.Conclusion:The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's judgment, and restored the Commissioner's order, holding that the Assessee was indeed a manufacturer of 'Harrison' brand locks and liable to pay excise duty.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found