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 ruling on textile processing units, exemption eligibility, duty demand, and "manufacture" definition

        COMMR. OF CUS. & C. EX., PUNE Versus SWASTIK DYEING & BLEACHING FACTORY

        COMMR. OF CUS. & C. EX., PUNE Versus SWASTIK DYEING & BLEACHING FACTORY - 2004 (170) E.L.T. 491 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues Involved:
        1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
        2. Treatment of multiple textile processing units as single manufacturing units.
        3. Applicability of exemption under specific Central Excise notifications.
        4. Determination of whether the demand for duty is time-barred.
        5. Definition and scope of "manufacture" under the Central Excise Act.
        6. Interpretation of the bar under the proviso to Notification No. 253/82-C.E.

        Detailed Analysis:

        I. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals:
        The Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous applications filed by the Revenue, condoning the delay in filing the appeals. The delay was due to the initial filing of consolidated appeals against different groups of textile processing units, which were later bifurcated into independent appeals as per the Tribunal's procedure.

        II. Treatment of Multiple Textile Processing Units as Single Manufacturing Units:
        The appeals arose from a common order by the Collector of Central Excise, Pune, which treated several groups of textile processing units as single manufacturing units. This treatment was for the purpose of denying the benefit of exemption under certain Central Excise notifications. The Tribunal examined the facts of Group No. IX as illustrative of all groups.

        III. Applicability of Exemption under Specific Central Excise Notifications:
        The Tribunal discussed the activities of M/s. Swastik Dyeing & Bleaching Factory (SDBF), M/s. Shri Datta Calendering (SDC), and M/s. Shree Ram Processors (SRP). It was noted that these units were availing exemptions under Notification No. 253/82-C.E. and Notification No. 130/82-C.E. for processes carried out without the aid of power. The Tribunal found that the units were independent entities and not a single manufacturing unit, thus eligible for the exemptions.

        IV. Determination of Whether the Demand for Duty is Time-Barred:
        The Tribunal upheld the finding that the entire demand was time-barred and the proviso to Section 11A(1) was inapplicable. The units existed prior to the amendment of Notification No. 80/76-C.E. on 24-11-1979, and there was no wilful suppression or deliberate fragmentation of units to evade duty. The legislative history and amendments indicated that the creation of independent units was not intended to evade duty but to comply with the legislative changes.

        V. Definition and Scope of "Manufacture" under the Central Excise Act:
        The Tribunal noted that processes like bleaching and mercerising done without the aid of power were exempt under Notification No. 137/77-C.E. and Notification No. 130/82-C.E. The processes of calendering and stentering were held not to amount to "manufacture" as per the Supreme Court's judgments in cases like Siddeshwari Cotton Mills and Mafatlal Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Therefore, even if the units were treated as a single factory, the processes undertaken did not constitute "manufacture" and were exempt from duty.

        VI. Interpretation of the Bar under the Proviso to Notification No. 253/82-C.E.:
        The Tribunal held that the bar under the proviso to Notification No. 253/82-C.E. applied 'qua factory' and not 'qua manufacturer'. The units were recognized as separate factories by the department, and the processes were carried out in different premises. The factors such as common management and shared resources were irrelevant for determining whether the units constituted a single factory. The benefit of the exemption under Notification No. 253/82-C.E. was extended to the assessees.

        Conclusion:
        The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the Revenue and allowed the appeals of the assessees. The cross-objections were disposed of in light of the above findings. The decision emphasized the independence of the units and their eligibility for exemptions under the relevant Central Excise notifications.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found