{"id":214263,"date":"2004-11-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-11-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-oil-cake-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004"},"modified":"2015-04-25T18:59:31","modified_gmt":"2015-04-25T13:29:31","slug":"shyam-oil-cake-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-oil-cake-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004","title":{"rendered":"Shyam Oil Cake Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, … on 23 November, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Shyam Oil Cake Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, … on 23 November, 2004<\/div>\n
Bench: S.N. Variava, Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, S.H. Kapadia<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1287-128 of 1999\n\nPETITIONER:\nSHYAM OIL CAKE LTD.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/11\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nS.N. VARIAVA & DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN & S.H. KAPADIA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<\/p>\n
S.N. VARIAVA, J. : These Appeals are against the Judgment dated 16th
\nNovember. 1998 of the Customs. Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal
\n(CEGAT).\n<\/p>\n
Briefly stated the facts are as follows :\n<\/p>\n
The Appellants purchase edible vegetable oil from the open market. On the
\noil purchased by them excise duty has been paid by the manufacturer. The
\nAppellants subject this oil to certain processes for the purposes of
\nrefining the oil. After refining the oil. the Appellants sell the refined
\nedible oil in the market. The Appellants filed, on 1st September, 1984, a
\nclarification list in respect of the refined oil sought to be cleared the
\nfactory. It was mentioned therein that since no manufacturing activity was
\ninvolved, no duty was payable on their clearances. On 17th September, 1984,
\nthe Superintendent of Central Excise returend the Classification List and
\ncalled upon the Appellants to clear the goods on payment of excise duty at
\nthe rate of Rs. 100 per metric ton and special excise duty at 5% of the
\nbasic excise duty. The Appellants filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3215 of
\n1984 in the Rajasthan High Court contending that since there was no
\nmanufacture, excise duty was not payable. On 23rd October, 1984, the
\nRajasthan High Court passed an interim order permitting the Appellants to
\nclear the refined oil from its factory subject to the Appellants furnishing
\na solvent security at the rate of Rs. 105 per metric on. This interim order
\nwas confirmed on 5th February, 1987.\n<\/p>\n
Pursuant to the interim order, for the period prior to March 1986, the
\nAppellants cleared their goods on furnishing security. For the period after
\nMarch 1986, the Appellants were issued show-cause notices. The Appellants
\nfiled reply to the show-cause notices. By an order 1st January, 1988 the
\nAssistant Collector held that the refined oil cleared by the Appellants was
\nclassifiable under Tariff Item 1503.10 and duty of Rs. 40,47,586.25 was
\npayable by the Appellants. The Appellants filed an Appeal against the Order
\nof the Assistant Collector.\n<\/p>\n
On 25th January, 1991, Writ Petition No. 3215\/84 was finally disposed of by
\nthe Rajasthan High Court. A direction was issued to the Assistant Collector
\nto decide the issue of classification of the said oils. Pursuant to the
\ndirections of the High Court, the Assistant Collector gave a personal
\nhearing to the Appellants and then passed Orders dated 18\/19th February,
\n1991 holding that a new and distinct product had been manufactured. It was
\nheld that the said product was classifiable under sub-heading 1503.10 and
\nduty was payable on the same. Against this Order also, an Appeal was filed
\nby the Appellants on 2nd March, 1991.\n<\/p>\n
The Appeal filed by the Appellants against the Order dated 1 st January,
\n1988 was dismissed by the Collector (Appeals) on 30th July, 1991. The
\nAppellants then filed a further Appeal to CEGAT against the order dated
\n30th July, 1991.\n<\/p>\n
On 22nd January, 1992, the Collector (Appeals) dismissed the Appeal filed
\nagainst the Order dated 18\/19th February, 1991. Against this Order, the
\nAppellants filed Appeals before CEGAT.\n<\/p>\n
The Appeal against Order dated 30th July, 1991, was taken up for hearing by
\nCEGAT. A difference of opinion arose between the Judicial Member and the
\nTechnical Member. Therefore, the matter was referred to a Third Member of
\nthe Tribunal. The Third Member of the Tribunal agreed with the Technical
\nMember and held that there was manufacture and the Appellants goods were
\nclassifiable under Tariff Item 1503.10. It is held that duty is leviable on
\nthe same. Against this Order, the present Civil Appeals have been filed.\n<\/p>\n
On 26th February, 1999 the CEGAT also disposed of the Appeal filed by the
\nAppellants against the Order dated 22nd January, 1992. Against that Order
\nCivil Appeal No. 3923 of 1999 has been filed.\n<\/p>\n
The question for consideration is whether processing of the edible
\nvegetable oil. purchased by the Appellants, results in manufacture. It is
\nnot denied that the refined oil, which is derived after the process, is a
\nmarketable commodity.\n<\/p>\n
As set out hereinabove, all the authorities below have held that there is
\nmanufacture and that the refined edible oil falls under Tariff Item
\n1503.10.\n<\/p>\n
It is necessary, at this stage, to note the concerned Tariff Item. It reads
\nas follows :\n<\/p>\n
___________________________________________________________________________
\n“15.03          Fixed vegetable oils, other than
\nthose of heading No. 15.02
\n1503.10        – Which have undergone,         Rs. 5,000
\nsubsequent to their extraction,    per tonne any one or more of the
\nfollowing processes, namely :<\/p>\n
\n(1)   Treatment with an\nalkali or acid\n(2)   Bleaching\n(3)   Deodorisation\n1503.90       - Other                                   Nil\"\n<\/pre>\n
___________________________________________________________________________
\n_<\/p>\n
Thus it is to be seen that Tariff Item 15.03 is in respect of “Fixed
\nvegetable oils other than those under the heading No. 15.02”. Tariff Item
\n15.03 is sub-divided into two categories. Tariffs Item 1503.10 covers fixed
\nvegetable oils, which have undergone, subsequent to the extraction, any one
\nor more of the following processes, namely, (1) Treatment with an alkali or
\nacid; (2) Bleaching; and (3) Deodorisation. All other fixed vegetable oils
\nfall under Tariff Item 1503.90. It is fairly not disputed that the
\nAppellants undertake process mentioned in Tariff Item 1503.10. The question
\nstill remains whether by undergoing such a process there is manufacture.\n<\/p>\n
Prior to 1986, Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944
\ndefined “manufacture” as follows :\n<\/p>\n
“Manufacture” includes any process incidental or ancillary to the
\ncompletion of a manufactured product; and<\/p>\n
(i) in relation to tobacco, includes the preparation of cigarettes, cigars,
\ncheroots, biris, cigarette or pipe or hookah tobacco, chewing tobacco or
\nsnuff;\n<\/p>\n
(ia) in relation to manufactured tobacco, includes the labelling or re-
\nlabelling of containers and repacking from bulk packs to retain packs or
\nthe adoption of any other treatment to render the product marketable to the
\nconsumer;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) in relation to salt, includes collection, removal, preparation,
\nsteeping, evaporation, boiling, or any one or more of these processes, the
\nseparation or purification of salt obtained in the manufacture of
\nsaltpetre, the separation of salt from earth or other substance so as to
\nproduce elementary salt, and the excavation or removal of natural saline
\ndeposits or efflorescence;\n<\/p>\n
(iii) in relation to patent or proprietary medicines as defined in Item No.
\n14E of the First Schedule and in relation to cosmetics and toilet
\npreparations as defined in Item No. 14F of that Schedule, includes the
\nconversion of powder into tables or capsules, the labelling or re-labelling
\nof containers intended for consumers and re-packing from bulk packs to
\nretail packs or the adoption of any other treatment to render the product
\nmarketable to the consumer:\n<\/p>\n
(iv) in relation to goods comprised in Item No. 18A of the First Schedule,
\nincludes sizing, beaming, warping, wrapping, winding or reeling, or any one
\nor more of these processes, or the conversion of any form of the said goods
\ninto another form of such goods;\n<\/p>\n
(v) in relation to goods comprised in Item No. 19-I of the First Schedule,
\nincludes bleaching, mercerizing, dying, printing, waterproofing,
\nrubberizing, shrink-proofing, organdie processing or any other process or
\nany one or more of these processes;\n<\/p>\n
(vi) in relation to goods comprised in Item No. 21(1) of the First
\nSchedule, includes milling, raising, blowing, tentering, dyeing or any
\nother process or any one or more of these processes;\n<\/p>\n
(vii) in relation to goods comprised in Item No. 22(1) of the First
\nSchedule, includes bleaching, dyeing printing, shrink-proofing, tentering,
\nheat-setting, crease resistant processing or any other process or any one
\nor more of these processes.\n<\/p>\n
(viii)           In relation to aluminium, includes lacquering or printing<\/p>\n
or both of plain containers, and the words, “manufacturer” shall be
\nconstrued accordingly and shall include not only a person who employs hired
\nlabour in the production or manufacture of excisable goods but also any
\nperson who engages in their production or manufacture on his own account.”\n<\/p>\n
Thus, under this definition, apart from actual manufacture certain
\nprocesses were considered to be manufacture. This did not include the
\nprocess of refining edible oil.\n<\/p>\n
With effect from 28th February, 1986 the definition of the term
\n“manufacture” has been changed. Now under Section 2(f) “Manufacture” has
\nbeen defined as follows :\n<\/p>\n
“2(f) “manufacture” includes any process,-\n<\/p>\n
(i)     incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured
\nproduct; and<\/p>\n
(ii)   which is specified in relation to any goods in the Section or
\nChapter notes of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as
\namounting to manufacture;\n<\/p>\n
and the word “manufacturer” shall be construed accordingly and shall
\ninclude not only a person who employs hired labour in production or
\nmanufacture of excisable goods, but also any person who engages in their
\nproduction or manufacture on his own account.”\n<\/p>\n
Thus, the amended definition enlarges the scope of manufacture by roping in
\nprocesses which may or may not strictly amount to manufacture provided
\nthose processes are specified in the Section or Chapter notes of the Tariff
\nSchedule as amounting to manufacture. It is clear that the Legislature
\nrealised that it was not possible to put in an exhaustive list of various
\nprocesses but that some methodology was required for declaring that a
\nparticular process amounted to manufacture. The language of the amended
\nSection 2(f) indicates that what is required is not just specification of
\nthe goods but a specification of the process and a declaration that the
\nsame amounts to manufacture. Of course, the specification must be in
\nrelation to any goods.\n<\/p>\n
The question whether any manufacture takes place when edible vegetable oil
\nis processed and refined was considered by a Constitution Bench of this
\nCourt in .M\/s. Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer,
\nKurnool,<\/a> reported in [1961] 2 SCR 14. This Court inter alia considered
\nwhether the refined oil could be said to be in the same form in which it
\nwas when extracted and held as follows :\n<\/p>\n
“Whether raw groundnut oil is converted into refined oil, there is no doubt
\nprocessing, but this consists merely in removing from raw groundnut that
\nconstituent part of the raw oil which is not really oil. The elements
\nremoved in the refining process consist of free fatty acids, phosphotides
\nand unsaponifiable matter. After the removal of this non-oleic matter
\ntherefore, the oil continues to be groundnut oil and nothing more. The
\nmatter removed from the raw groundnut oil not being oil cannot be used,
\nafter separation, as oil or for any purpose for which oil could be used. In
\nother words, the processing consists in the non-oily content of the raw oil
\nbeing separate and removed, rendering the oily content of the oil 100 per
\ncent. For this reason refined oil continues to be groundnut oil within the
\nmeaning of rules 5(l)(k) and 18(2) notwithstanding that such oil does not
\npossess the characteristic colour, or taste, odour, etc. of the raw
\ngroundnut oil.”\n<\/p>\n
Thus, this Court has held that prior to refining, it was raw groundnut oil
\nand after refining even though the characteristic colour, taste and odour
\nmay have changed it remained ground oil. In other words, this Court held
\nthat there was no manufacture of a new and distinct commodity.\n<\/p>\n
This Court has held in a number of decisions that merely because some
\nprocess has been carried on it is not necessary that a new commodity has
\ncome into existence. In the case of Commissioner of C. Ex., Chandigarh-I v.
\nMarkfed Vanaspati & Allied Indus,<\/a> reported in (2003) 153 E.L.T. 491 S.C.,
\nthe question was whether there was any manufacture when earth was processed
\nand spent earth derived therefrom. This Court held that the burden to prove
\nof manufacture is always on Revenue. It was held that merely because an
\nItem falls in a Tariff Entry, it could not be presumed or deemed that there
\nwas manufacture. It was held that to begin with the product was earth and
\nthat even after processing it remained earth. It was held that the duty
\nhaving been paid on earth, no duty was leviable on spent earth.\n<\/p>\n
In the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Technoweld Industries,<\/a>
\nreported in (2003) 155 E.L.T. 209 S.C., the question was whether the
\ndrawing of wires from wire rods amounted to manufacture. It was held that
\nboth the products were wires and merely because they were covered by two
\nseparate Entries did not mean that the product was excisable. It was held
\nthat in the absence of any manufacture the product did not become excisable
\nmerely because there were two separate Entries.\n<\/p>\n
In the case of Metlex (I) Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner of C. Ex., New Delhi,<\/a>
\nreported in (2004) 165 E.L.T. 129 S.C., it was again held that the burden
\nof proving of manufacture laid on the Revenue. It was held that laminated\/
\nmetalised film remained a film and no new or distinct product has come into
\nexistence.\n<\/p>\n
In the case of Aman Marble Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of C. Ex.,
\nJaipur<\/a> reported in (2003) 157 E.L.T. 393 S.C., the question was whether
\ncutting of marble blocks into marble slabs amounted to manufacture. It was
\nsubmitted that such an activity had been specifically brought into the
\nTariff Item by indicating the process. It was submitted that once the
\nprocess had been indicated in the Tariff Item, it would amount to
\nmanufacture. These arguments were negatived. It was held that to start with
\nthe commodity was a marble and even after cutting it remained marble. It
\nwas held that there was no manufacture.\n<\/p>\n
It was submitted that the decision in Aman Marble Industries case is not
\nlaying down the correct law inasmuch as it has not taken not of the amended
\ndefinition of the term “manufacture” in Section 2(f). It was submitted that
\nfor a process to amount to manufacture it need not be so mentioned only in
\nthe Section or Chapter Note and that it could also be so mentioned in the
\nTariff Item. It was true that the amendment definition has not been taken
\nnote of. We are in agreement with the submission that under the amended
\ndefinition, which is an inclusive definition, it is not necessary that only
\nin the Section or Chapter Note it must be specified that a particular
\nprocess amounts to manufacture. It may be open to so specify even in the
\nTariff Item. However, either in the Section or Chapter Note or in the
\nTariff Entry it must be specified that the process amounts to manufacture.
\nMerely setting out a process in the Tariff Entry would not be sufficient.
\nIf the process is indicated in the Tariff Entry, without specifying that
\nthe same amounts to manufacture, then the indication of the process is
\nmerely for the purposes of identifying the product and the rate which is
\napplicable in that product. In order words, for a deeming provision to come
\ninto play it must be specifically stated that a particular process amounts
\nto manufacture. In the absence of it being so specified the commodity would
\nnot become excisable merely because a separate Tariff Item exists is
\nrespect of that commodity.\n<\/p>\n
In this case, neither in the Section nor in the Chapter Note nor in the
\nTariff Item do we find any indication that the process indicated is to
\namount to manufacture. To start with the product was edible vegetable oil.
\nEven after the refining, it remains edible vegetable oil. As actual
\nmanufacture has not taken place, the deeming provision cannot be brought
\ninto play in the absence of it being specifically stated that the process
\namounts to manufacture.\n<\/p>\n
In any even, for the period prior to 1986 i.e. before the definition of the
\nterm “Manufacture” was amended, this process could not be taken to amount
\nto manufacture. Thus for the period prior to 1986 the demand could not have
\nbeen sustained in any event.\n<\/p>\n
In this view of the matter, we are unable to sustain the Orders of the
\nauthorities below. It is accordingly held that there is no manufacture and
\nthe refined oil is not excisable. The Orders of the authorities below
\nholding that there is manufacture and refined oil is excisable are hereby
\nset aside. The demand notices issued are quashed.\n<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the Appeals are allowed. There will, however, be no order as
\nto costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Shyam Oil Cake Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, … on 23 November, 2004 Bench: S.N. Variava, Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, S.H. Kapadia CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1287-128 of 1999 PETITIONER: SHYAM OIL CAKE LTD. RESPONDENT: COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/11\/2004 BENCH: S.N. VARIAVA & DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-214263","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nShyam Oil Cake Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 23 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-oil-cake-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shyam Oil Cake Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 23 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-oil-cake-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-25T13:29:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-oil-cake-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-oil-cake-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shyam Oil Cake Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, … on 23 November, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-25T13:29:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-oil-cake-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004\"},\"wordCount\":2652,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-oil-cake-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-oil-cake-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-oil-cake-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004\",\"name\":\"Shyam Oil Cake Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 23 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-25T13:29:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-oil-cake-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-oil-cake-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-oil-cake-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shyam Oil Cake Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, … on 23 November, 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shyam Oil Cake Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 23 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-oil-cake-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shyam Oil Cake Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 23 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-oil-cake-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-25T13:29:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-oil-cake-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-oil-cake-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shyam Oil Cake Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, … on 23 November, 2004","datePublished":"2004-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-25T13:29:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-oil-cake-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004"},"wordCount":2652,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-oil-cake-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-oil-cake-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-oil-cake-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004","name":"Shyam Oil Cake Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 23 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-25T13:29:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-oil-cake-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-oil-cake-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-oil-cake-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shyam Oil Cake Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, … on 23 November, 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214263","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=214263"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214263\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=214263"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=214263"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=214263"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}