Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR versus M/S. HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD., SINC SMELTER, DEBARI DISTT. UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

Decided
24 April 2004
Judges listed
S.N. VARIAVA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2004] 3 S.C.R. 525 · 2004 INSC 308

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

S. N. V ARIA VA, J. The question which arises in these two Appeals is whether the Respondents are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 217/86-CE dated 2nd April, 1986. The Tribunal has, in the impugned Orders without giving any ascertainable reasons, held that the lead input sheet would be eligible to the benefit of the Notification, but the headers would not be eligible to the benefit of the Notification.

p. 526, margin C

Notification No. 217 /86-CE of 1986 only exempts inputs. It also clarifies that machine, machinery, plant equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances used for manufacturing and processing of any goods or bringing about any change in any substance or in relation to a final product shall be excluded from the term "inputs". What is questioned before us is the finding of the Tribunal that the lead anode sheets are eligible to the benefit of the Notification.

p. 526, margin D

It was fairly admitted that sheets would be an input and that if it is clarified that the Noti~cation only applies to sheets and not to the fin~! product manufactured after headers are fixed to the sheets, the Deptt. will be satisfied. To this there is no objection.

p. 526, margin E

In our view it is clear that headers whether attached to lead or aluminium sheets are not inputs. As they are not inp!JtS the benefit of the Notification would not be available to headers. However, the sheets are inputs and they would be entitled to the benefit of the Notification.

p. 526, margin F

These Appeals stand disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. S.K.S. Appeals disposed of.

p. 526, margin G