M/S. NICHOLAS PLRAMAL INDIA LTD. versus COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI

M/S. NICHOLAS PLRAMAL INDIA LTD. versus COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI

Crude Vitamin A emerging in the manufacture process and consumed captively in animal feed supplements is excisable, as it satisfies both manufacture and marketability tests; short shelf-life does not prevent marketability; non-disclosure justifies invocation of the extended limitation period for the duty demand.

Parties
Appellant: M/S. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.; Respondent: Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal From Customs Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Central Excise Duty, Manufacture and Marketability, Limitation Periods, Intermediate Goods
Taxation Administrative Law Central Excise Duty Manufacture and Marketability Limitation Periods Intermediate Goods

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M/S. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.

Appellant

Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal From Customs Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether 'Vitamin A Acetate Crude' and 'Vitamin A Palmitate' (crude Vitamin A) are excisable goods liable to duty under Central Excise Act, 1944
  2. 2 Whether the demand made for excise duty is time-barred in respect of certain periods

Ratio Decidendi

Crude Vitamin A emerging in the manufacture process and consumed captively in animal feed supplements is excisable, as it satisfies both manufacture and marketability tests; short shelf-life does not prevent marketability; non-disclosure justifies invocation of the extended limitation period for the duty demand.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Findings of Commissioner and Tribunal upheld.
  • Demand for excise duty for periods subsequently specified affirmed as within limitation.