TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (2) TMI 449
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... condemned barges and dismantle the same and sell the scrap. That in view of this operation, the excise authorities issued a show cause notice, inter alia, calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why the petitioners should not pay excise duty on the waste, scrap and other articles derived from such operation. The petitioners have hence come to court challenging the show cause notice. 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1893 and Chief of the Army Staff v. Major Dharam Pal Kukrety AIR 1985 SC 703. 3.. Now, the question as to whether dismantling of a barge or a ship can come within the compass of the word "manufacture", it would be necessary to look at the observations made in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Indian Metal Traders [1978] 41 STC 169 (Bom). In that case a similar question arose, viz., whet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... necessary to consider whether iron and steel plates, wooden planks excluding loose ones, rivets and bolts could be said to be new commercial commodities or manufactured with the use of the said ship, as these have admittedly been obtained also from the framework or hull or body proper of the said ship." If the word "manufacture" is attracted to the operation carried out by the petitioners, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....waste and scrap available from other products. That this entails discrimination, and since the petitioners would be affected by such discrimination, they have sought that these tariff items be struck down. That as a matter of fact, in the case of re: S.S. Jain & Co. [1986] 25 ELT 17, a single Judge of the Calcutta High Court had in fact struck down tariff item Nos. 72.03 and 72.15. That he (Mr. Ka....