Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Apollo Tyres Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs Collector of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Apr 16, 1996
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/9398

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Apollo Tyres Ltd.

Respondent

Collector of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In
(1996)LC66Tri(Delhi)

Excerpt

1. this appeal is directed against order-in-original no. 116/87, dated 1-9-1987. the issue relates to classification of waste products like scrap rubber, rubber components, flap, tyres and tubes arising during the course of manufacture of tyres and tubes under the old tariff.2. arguing for the appellants, shri mahesh sharma, sr. manager of the company submits that the issue is fully covered in their favour by judgment of delhi high court reported in case of modi rubber v. u.o.i.-1987 (29) e.l.t. 502 which was subsequently upheld by the hon'ble apex court. he also submits that tribunal in its order reported in case of c.c.e. v. dunlop india ltd. -1988 (36) e.l.t. 349 also held that the waste arising during the course of manufacture would not qualify as manufactured product and hence not goods.3. arguing for the revenue, ld. dr submits that in the case reported in 1987 (30) e.l.t. 313 (tribunal) tribunal held that such scraps would be dutiable.4. we have heard both sides. we find that delhi high court in case of modi rubber ltd. held that such scrap cannot be considered as goods.tribunal in case of dunlop india (supra) also held that such wastes are not goods. they distinguished the earlier order of the tribunal reported in -1987 (30) e.l.t. 313 on the ground that the case was decided prior to delhi high court's decision being brought to their notice, dunlop india ltd. decision of the tribunal has now subsequently been approved by hon'ble apex court vide court room high lights reported in 1995 (79) e.l.t. a205.5. in the result, in view of the ratio of this judgment we hold that such wastes were not dutiable during the material period under the old tariff.

Full Judgment

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 116/87, dated 1-9-1987. The issue relates to classification of waste products like scrap rubber, rubber components, flap, tyres and tubes arising during the course of manufacture of tyres and tubes under the old tariff.

2. Arguing for the appellants, Shri Mahesh Sharma, Sr. Manager of the Company submits that the issue is fully covered in their favour by judgment of Delhi High Court reported in case of Modi Rubber v. U.O.I.-1987 (29) E.L.T. 502 which was subsequently upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. He also submits that Tribunal in its order reported in case of C.C.E. v. Dunlop India Ltd. -1988 (36) E.L.T. 349 also held that the waste arising during the course of manufacture would not qualify as manufactured product and hence not goods.

3. Arguing for the Revenue, ld. DR submits that in the case reported in 1987 (30) E.L.T. 313 (Tribunal) Tribunal held that such scraps would be dutiable.

4. We have heard both sides. We find that Delhi High Court in case of Modi Rubber Ltd. held that such scrap cannot be considered as goods.

Tribunal in case of Dunlop India (supra) also held that such wastes are not goods. They distinguished the earlier order of the Tribunal reported in -1987 (30) E.L.T. 313 on the ground that the case was decided prior to Delhi High Court's decision being brought to their notice, Dunlop India Ltd. decision of the Tribunal has now subsequently been approved by Hon'ble Apex Court vide Court Room High Lights reported in 1995 (79) E.L.T. A205.

5. In the result, in view of the ratio of this judgment we hold that such wastes were not dutiable during the material period under the old Tariff.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial