Collector of Central Excise Vs. Papyrus Papers Ltd.

Collector of Central Excise vs Papyrus Papers Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Nov 17, 1987

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/3958

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/3958
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Nov 17, 1987
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Collector of Central Excise

Respondent

Papyrus Papers Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (1988)(15)ECC336

Excerpt

1. the question for decision in this appeal by revenue is whether cinder obtained by the respondents while burning coal in the boiler in the respondents factory constitutes manufacture within the meaning of central excise act, 1944 and attracts central excise duty liability.2. we have heard smt. j.k. chander, departmental representative for the appellants and shri r.k. virmani, advocate for the respondents and have perused the papers.3. during arguments, shri virmani drew our attention to our decision in collector of central excise, guntur v. andhra oxygen pvt. ltd. [1987 (30) elt 967] where the tribunal following the delhi high court decision in modi rubber ltd. v. union of india [1987 (29) elt 502 delhi] where rubber scraps and cuttings were held by the hon'ble high court not to be goods within the meaning of central excise law, held carbidge sludge not to be goods and not excisable and obtaining of the same not constituting manufacture within the meaning of central excise law. while smt. chander has argued that cinder is used for filling up the ditches on road and is also sold for a price, we do not think that these considerations justify departing from the aforesaid decision.

Full Judgment

1. The question for decision in this appeal by Revenue is whether Cinder obtained by the respondents while burning coal in the boiler in the respondents factory constitutes manufacture within the meaning of Central Excise Act, 1944 and attracts Central Excise duty liability.

2. We have heard Smt. J.K. Chander, Departmental Representative for the appellants and Shri R.K. Virmani, Advocate for the respondents and have perused the papers.

3. During arguments, Shri Virmani drew our attention to our decision in Collector of Central Excise, Guntur v. Andhra Oxygen Pvt. Ltd. [1987 (30) ELT 967] where the Tribunal following the Delhi High Court decision in Modi Rubber Ltd. v. Union of India [1987 (29) ELT 502 Delhi] where rubber scraps and cuttings were held by the Hon'ble High Court not to be goods within the meaning of Central Excise law, held Carbidge sludge not to be goods and not excisable and obtaining of the same not constituting manufacture within the meaning of Central Excise law. While Smt. Chander has argued that Cinder is used for filling up the ditches on road and is also sold for a price, we do not think that these considerations justify departing from the aforesaid decision.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Collector of Central Excise vs Papyrus Papers Ltd. Same Subject Excise