Supreme CourtFull Bench(1997) 05 SC CK 0029

Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. vs Director of Inspector, C.C.E. and Another

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 8 May 1997 · Citation: (1997) 93 ELT 321 : (1997) 10 JT 675 : (1997) 5 SCC 509

HON’BLE JUDGES
V. N. Khare, J · S. C. Sen, J · K. Venkataswami, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Appeal No''s. 3300 and 3328 of 1981

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 261 words
1.

C.A. No. 3328/1981 - So far as this appeal is concerned, the question is whether the duty of excise whereof tax credit is available would be in respect of such duty of excise as is chargeable under Central Excises and Salt Act alone. The question has already been answered by this Court in the case of Associated Cements Co. Ltd. v. Director of Inspection, Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi . In that case, it was held that the tax credit has to be confined to the Central Excises and Salt Act only. In view of that this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

C.A. No. 3300 of 1981

2.

The facts of this case are not is dispute. The respondent-Company is manufacturing various types of papers. The contention of the Department is that "paper" (all sorts) will include all sorts of papers manufactured by the company and all types of paper have to be taken together to find out whether the production made in the base year has been exceeded. The High Court has taken the view that the base year production must be taken separately for each type of paper manufactured by the company. The High Court has pointed out that the goods are excisable as and when produced and are assessable under various Tariff entries separately. Therefore, each type of papers which are excisable separately will be entitled to relief also separately.

3.

We do not find any defect in the reasoning of the High Court. We dismiss this appeal. No order as to costs.