Biddle Sawyer Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Biddle Sawyer Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Dec 15, 2003

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/33447

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/33447
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T C.
Decided On: Dec 15, 2003
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Right to Information

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Biddle Sawyer Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)(168)ELT119Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. heard both sides. shri r.g. sheth, learned advocate, for the appellants states that credit has been denied on a small part of the raw material used for testing the quality which is required under drugs and cosmetics act, 1940 before rest of the raw material is taken up for manufacture of medicine. he further states that without such testing for quality control it would not be possible to manufacture medicines for human consumption or to meet the legal requirement under the said drugs act. as such, it is his submission that use of a small part of the raw material for quality check is part of the overall manufacturing process. in this regard, he also cites decision of the apex court in the case of c.c.e. v. rajasthan state chemical works -1991 (55) e.l.t.444 (s.c.).2. i have also heard shri bidhan chandra, learned j.d.r. who supports the finding of the lower authorities that the raw material taken for testing is used up in the test process and the same is not used for production of finished goods.3. after hearing both sides and perusal of the cited decision of the apex court, i am of the view that testing of raw material for quality control as required under another statute can be taken to be included in the process of manufacture of the finished goods and as such, the credit of duty paid on raw material is admissible to the appellants.accordingly, i set aside the orders passed by the lower authorities.the appeal is allowed with consequential benefit to the appellants.

Full Judgment

1. Heard both sides. Shri R.G. Sheth, learned Advocate, for the appellants states that credit has been denied on a small part of the raw material used for testing the quality which is required under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 before rest of the raw material is taken up for manufacture of medicine. He further states that without such testing for quality control it would not be possible to manufacture medicines for human consumption or to meet the legal requirement under the said Drugs Act. As such, it is his submission that use of a small part of the raw material for quality check is part of the overall manufacturing process. In this regard, he also cites decision of the Apex Court in the case of C.C.E. v. Rajasthan State Chemical Works -1991 (55) E.L.T.444 (S.C.).

2. I have also heard Shri Bidhan Chandra, learned J.D.R. who supports the finding of the lower authorities that the raw material taken for testing is used up in the test process and the same is not used for production of finished goods.

3. After hearing both sides and perusal of the cited decision of the Apex Court, I am of the view that testing of raw material for quality control as required under another statute can be taken to be included in the process of manufacture of the finished goods and as such, the credit of duty paid on raw material is admissible to the appellants.

Accordingly, I set aside the orders passed by the lower authorities.

The appeal is allowed with consequential benefit to the appellants.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Biddle Sawyer Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Right to Information Same Judge S T C.