JAIPRAKASH INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE CHANDIGARH
LAWS(SC)-2002-11-65
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
November 22,2002
JAIPRAKASH INDUSTRIES LIMITED
Appellant
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,CHANDIGARH
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
KALYAN JEWELLERS INDIA LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER [LAWS(KER)-2022-10-262] [REFERRED TO]BATA INDIA LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE [LAWS(CE)-2004-6-183] [REFERRED TO]
PHOENIX MARKETING VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (ST) [LAWS(CE)-2008-12-182] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN SCHOOL OF BUSINESS VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(CB)-2009-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR ARORA AND ORS. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(CE)-2014-3-120] [REFERRED TO]
IDEA MOBILE COMMUNICATION LTD. VS. COMMR. OF C. EX., NEW DELHI/ROHTAK [LAWS(CE)-2011-9-155] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. BRIPANIL SYNTHETICS P LTD [LAWS(KAR)-2006-7-29] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF C EX , JALANDHAR VS. AFCONS PAULING JOINT VENTURE [LAWS(P&H)-2009-1-314] [REFERRED]
MS ALUMAYER INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE-MUMBAI-V [LAWS(BOM)-2011-12-174] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN MINERAL PRODUCTS CO. LTD. VS. COMMR. OF C. EX., SURAT-II [LAWS(CE)-2008-8-62] [REFERRED TO]
THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. SUPREME PETROCHEM LTD. [LAWS(CE)-2009-11-94] [REFERRED TO]
FIREPRO SYSTEMS PRIVATE LTD. VS. COMMR. OF SERVICE TAX, BANGALORE [LAWS(CE)-2008-3-85] [REFERRED TO]
ARYAN ENERGY (P) LTD. VS. COMMR. OF CUS. & C. EX., HYDERABAD-I [LAWS(CE)-2008-5-121] [REFERRED TO]
MATHUR CORR-TECH PVT. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(CE)-2015-1-13] [REFERRED TO]
ANKLESHWAR TALUKA ONGC LAND LOOSERS TRAVELLES CO.OP. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(GJH)-2012-3-166] [REFERRED TO]
SUTHAM NYLOCOTS VS. CCE [LAWS(CE)-2003-3-204] [REFERRED TO]
LSE SECURITIES LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, LUDHIANA [LAWS(CE)-2012-5-15] [REFERRED TO]
IN RE: FEDERATION OF INDIAN MICRO AND SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES VS. STATE [LAWS(CE)-2012-12-2] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR VS. BALDEV ALLOYS (P.) LTD [LAWS(CE)-2011-11-10] [REFERRED TO]
K. VIJAYA C. RAI VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MANGALORE [LAWS(CE)-2006-12-101] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. BHARAT ALUMINIUM CO. LTD. [LAWS(CHH)-2011-11-86] [REFERRED TO]
ATLAS CYCLES (HARYANA) LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. [LAWS(CE)-2003-5-280] [REFERRED TO]
THIRD MEMBER ON REFERENCE : JUSTICE K.K. USHA, PRESIDENT MAJORITY ORDER PER : DR. S.L. PEERAN, MEMBER (J) AND SHRI K.C. MAMGAIN, MEMBER (T) BPL LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALICUT [LAWS(CE)-2004-7-177] [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATED DRUG CO. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE-III [LAWS(CE)-2008-10-52] [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMINARAYANA MINING CO. VS. COMMR. OF S.T., BANGALORE [LAWS(CE)-2009-9-37] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CCE VAPI [LAWS(CE)-2011-12-100] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS) VS. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2015-10-124] [REFERRED TO]
SHREE GAYATRI TOURIST BUS SERVICE VS. COMMR. OF C. EX., VADODARA [LAWS(CE)-2012-3-97] [REFERRED TO]
JODHPUR ALLOYS PVT. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(CE)-2013-2-35] [REFERRED TO]
AFCONS PAULING JOINT VENTURE VS. CCE [LAWS(CE)-2004-1-316] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE GHAZIABAD VS. RATHI STEEL AND POWER LTD [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-10] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED VS. MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION [LAWS(SC)-2021-10-47] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. M/S. SATYAM DIGITAL PHOTO LAB [LAWS(CE)-2011-9-109] [REFERRED TO]
UNIVERSAL FLEXIBLES LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE-I [LAWS(CE)-2003-8-123] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
S. N. Variava, J. -
(1.)These appeals are against an Order dated 8th October, 1999 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter called the "Tribunal").
(2.)Briefly stated the facts are as follows : The appellants are engaged in construction activities. As part of their business they crush boulders into "bajari" which is then used in the construction work. The appellants did not consider the activities of crushing boulders into bajari to be a manufacturing activity. They, therefore, did not apply for any licence nor paid excise duty.
(3.)On 26th February, 1992 a show cause notice was issued to them demanding duty of Rs. 17,565/- on the crushed bajari for the period October, 1991 to January, 1992. Another show cause notice was issued to them on 3rd May, 1993 demanding duty of Rs. 12,05, 187/- for the period 1st April, 1988 to 30th September, 1991. The appellants filed a reply to both the notices.
(2.)Briefly stated the facts are as follows : The appellants are engaged in construction activities. As part of their business they crush boulders into "bajari" which is then used in the construction work. The appellants did not consider the activities of crushing boulders into bajari to be a manufacturing activity. They, therefore, did not apply for any licence nor paid excise duty.
(3.)On 26th February, 1992 a show cause notice was issued to them demanding duty of Rs. 17,565/- on the crushed bajari for the period October, 1991 to January, 1992. Another show cause notice was issued to them on 3rd May, 1993 demanding duty of Rs. 12,05, 187/- for the period 1st April, 1988 to 30th September, 1991. The appellants filed a reply to both the notices.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.