{"id":267547,"date":"2007-05-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-05-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-mahavir-aluminium-ltd-on-11-may-2007"},"modified":"2017-12-31T16:47:41","modified_gmt":"2017-12-31T11:17:41","slug":"commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-mahavir-aluminium-ltd-on-11-may-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-mahavir-aluminium-ltd-on-11-may-2007","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Central Excise, … vs M\/S Mahavir Aluminium Ltd on 11 May, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Commissioner Of Central Excise, … vs M\/S Mahavir Aluminium Ltd on 11 May, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: C Thakker<\/div>\n
Bench: Ashok Bhan, C.K. Thakker<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  6197 of 2001\n\nPETITIONER:\nCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM\/S MAHAVIR ALUMINIUM LTD\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/05\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nASHOK BHAN & C.K. THAKKER\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
C.K. THAKKER, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.\t\tA short question which arises for our
\nconsideration in the present appeal is whether the
\nprocess of conversion of Aluminium Ingots into
\nAluminium Billets during the intermediate stage by the
\nprocess of re-melting and adding other alloys amounts to
\n‘manufacture’ within the meaning of Section 2(f)<\/a> of the
\nCentral Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
\nAct’) and Central Excise Duty is chargeable thereon?\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tThe facts of the case are that M\/s Mahavir
\nAluminium Ltd., Bhiwadi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
\nAssessee’) was engaged in the manufacture of Aluminium
\nProducts falling under Chapter 76 of the Central Excise
\nTariff Act<\/a>, 1985. The assessee was manufacturing
\nAluminium Billets and was consuming it captively for the
\nmanufacture of Aluminium Irrigation Pipes exempted
\nfrom payment of duty. The assessee was also selling the
\nsaid commodity in the market by paying Excise Duty.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tIt was the case of the Commissioner of Central
\nExcise, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Revenue’)
\nthat the assessee did not mention the facts in
\nclassification lists\/declarations filed under Rule 173 B of
\nthe Central Excise Rules, 1944 nor produced record
\nrelating to production of Aluminium Billets used for
\ncaptive consumption and production of Aluminium
\nIrrigation Pipes. A notice was, therefore, issued to the
\nassessee on January 2, 1996 to show cause why an
\namount of Rs.1,16,56,476\/- towards clearance of
\nAluminium Billets for captive consumption by
\nsuppressing the fact that such consumption was for
\nmanufacture of fully exempt products should not be
\nrecovered as duty and why penalty should not be
\nimposed along with penalty.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tBy an order-in-original dated August 8, 1997,
\ndemand of Rs.44,35,637\/- was confirmed for the period
\nbetween June, 1995 and December, 1995. The demand
\nbeyond the period of six months was held to be barred by
\ntime. Penalty of Rs.10,00,000\/- was also imposed.\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tAn appeal filed by the assessee against the
\norder-in-original was allowed by the Custom, Excise and
\nGold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (‘CEGAT’ for short) on
\nFebruary 16, 2000, setting aside the order-in-original
\npassed by the Commissioner and remanding the matter
\nfor fresh disposal in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
6.\t\tHearing was afforded to the assessee thereafter
\nby the Commissioner and considering the rival
\nsubmissions of the parties, the Commissioner held that
\nAluminium Billets had come into existence as a result of
\nconversion of Aluminium Scraps, Ingots and other
\nalloying materials by process of melting. Billets are thus
\na commodity distinct from Ingots. The Commissioner also
\nrecorded a finding that “Aluminium Billets, besides being
\nused captively, were also sold in the marked by the
\nassessee on payment of duty @ 15% adv.”\n<\/p>\n
7.\t\tThe Commissioner concluded :\n<\/p>\n
“Regarding whether aluminum billets
\nproduced at the intermediate stage by the
\nassessee as per the process discussed in para
\nA supra amounts to manufacture. I find that a
\nbillet as different article emerged as a result of
\nmelting of ingots\/scrap of aluminium and
\nother alloying metals and is having distinct
\nname, character or use and as per Section 3<\/a> of
\nCentral Excise Act, 1944 these are goods
\nwhich can ordinarily be bought and sold in the
\nmarket. The assessee is also selling the same
\nin the market apart from captive consumption
\nfor manufacture of irrigation aluminium pipes.
\nThus, billet is altogether a different product
\nthan an ingot of aluminium know to the
\nmarket and has different use and character. In
\nthe assessee’s case also they could not have
\nmanufactured extruded pipes form aluminium
\ningots. Accordingly aluminium ingots and
\nbillets are altogether different goods”.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
8.\t\tHe, therefore, held that the production of
\nAluminium Billets from Aluminium Ingots\/Scraps and
\nother alloying materials amounted to ‘manufacture’
\nwithin the meaning of Section 2(f)<\/a> of the Act and was
\nchargeable to Central Excise Duty under sub-heading
\n7601.10 of Chapter 76 of the Central Excise Tariff Act<\/a>,
\n1985.\n<\/p>\n
9.\t\tThe assessee being aggrieved by the order-in-
\noriginal passed by the Commissioner, preferred an appeal
\nto CEGAT. CEGAT observed that there was substance in
\nthe contention raised by the assessee that the process
\ncarried out by the assessee of Melting Ingots into Round
\nIngots for the purpose of extrusion did not amount to
\n‘manufacture’ and the taxable commodity remained the
\nsame although in different form. CEGAT stated that
\n“mere change in physical form of shape or substance
\ndoes not amount to manufacture”. It, therefore, allowed
\nthe appeal and set aside the order passed by the
\nCommissioner. The said order is challenged by the
\nRevenue in this Court.\n<\/p>\n
10.\t\tWe have heard the learned counsel for the
\nparties.\n<\/p>\n
11.\t\tIt was submitted by the learned counsel for the
\nRevenue that CEGAT has committed an error of law in
\nholding that the commodity remained one and the same
\nand merely the form was changed and as such there was
\nno ‘manufacture’ and Excise Duty could not be imposed
\nby the Department.\n<\/p>\n
12.\t\tThe learned counsel for the assessee, on the
\nother hand, submitted that CEGAT was right in holding
\nthat there was no change of commodity and hence there
\nwas no ‘manufacture’. Extrusion Ingots which are also
\nknown as Round Ingots or Billets are only a different
\nform of the same taxable commodity, namely, Wrought
\nAluminium under Chapter 7601. The process or
\nconversion of Melting Ingots into Extrusion Ingots was
\nnot a ‘process of manufacture’ and there is a change in
\nshape or form of the product. The order of CEGAT, hence,
\ncalls for no interference.\n<\/p>\n
13.\t\tHaving heard the learned counsel for the
\nparties, in our opinion, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
\nThe expression ‘manufacture’ is defined in Clause (f) of
\nSection 2<\/a> of the Act which reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
(f) “Manufacture” includes any process:\n<\/p>\n
    (i)    incidental or ancillary to the completion
\nof a manufactured product;\n<\/p>\n
    (ii)  which is specified in relation to any
\ngoods in the Section or Chapter notes
\nof the Schedule to the Central Excise
\nTariff Act<\/a>, 1985 as amounting to
\nmanufacture, (5 of 1986), and the word
\n“manufacturer” shall be construed
\naccordingly and shall include not only
\na person who employs hired labour in
\nthe production or manufacture of
\nexcisable, goods, but also any person
\nwho engages in their production or
\nmanufacture on his own account.\n<\/p>\n
14.\t\tIt is thus clear that ‘manufacture’ includes any
\nprocess under Section 2(f)<\/a>. As observed by this Court
\nbefore more than four decades in Union of India &
\nAnother. v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. & Ors.,
\n(1963) Supp (1) SCR 586 : AIR 1963 SC 791, the word
\n‘manufacture’ is a verb which is generally understood to
\nmean as “bringing into existence a new substance” and
\ndoes not mean merely “to produce some change in a
\nsubstance, however minor in consequence the change
\nmay be”.\n<\/p>\n
15.\t\tIn Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India<\/a>,
\n(1985) 3 SCC 314, it was held that taxable event under
\nExcise Law is `manufacture’. The moment there is
\ntransformation into a new commodity commercially
\ndistinct and separate commodity having its own
\ncharacter and name whether be it the result of one
\nprocess or several processes, ‘manufacture’ takes place
\nand liability to\texcise duty under Section 4<\/a> is attracted.\n<\/p>\n
16.\t\tIn Union Carbide India Ltd. v. Union of India &
\nOrs<\/a>., (1986) 2 SCC 547, this Court held that in order to
\nattract Excise Duty, the article manufactured must be
\ncapable of sale to a consumer. To become goods, an
\narticle must be something which can ordinarily come to
\nthe market to be bought and be sold.\n<\/p>\n
17.\t\tIn Union of India & Ors. v. J.G. Glass Industries
\nLtd. & Ors<\/a>., (1998) 2 SCC 32, leading decisions came to
\nbe considered by this Court and it was held that a two
\nfold test emerged for deciding whether the process is that
\nof ‘manufacture’.\n<\/p>\n
18.\t\tThe Court after considering earlier decisions,
\nstated:\n<\/p>\n
“On an analysis of the aforesaid
\nrulings, a two-old test emerges for
\ndeciding whether the  process is  that of
\n“manufacture”.  First,  whether  by the
\nsaid  process  a different commercial
\ncommodity  comes into  existence  or
\nwhether the identity of the original
\ncommodity ceases to exist; secondly,
\nwhether the commodity which was
\nalready in existence will serve no
\npurpose but  for the said process. In
\nother words whether the commodity is
\nalready in existence will be of no
\ncommercial use but for the said process”.\n<\/p>\n
19.\t\tIn the present case, the assessee is not only
\ncaptively consuming Aluminium Billets for the
\nproduction of Irrigation Pipes but is also selling such
\ncommodity in open market. It is, therefore, clear that the
\nprocess of ‘manufacture’ results in emergence of new
\ncommercial commodity, namely, ‘Billets’. The said
\ncommodity has an independent marketability and the
\nassessee itself has sold Billets in open market by paying
\nExcise Duty.\n<\/p>\n
20.\t\tThe entry also makes it clear which is under
\nChapter 76. The relevant part reads thus:<\/p>\n
\nChapter 76\nHeading     Sub-Heading          Description            Rate of Duty\nNo.             No.                        of Goods\n\n76.01        7601.10           ingots, billets         16%\n\n<\/pre>\n
21.\t\tIngots and Billets are thus two different
\ncommercial commodities. They have separate, distinct
\nand identifiable marketability and saleability. The
\nassessee, no doubt, used Aluminium Billets captively but
\nis also selling in open market. We are, therefore, of the
\nview that the Commissioner was right in holding that the
\nassessee was liable to pay Excise Duty and CEGAT was
\nwrong in interfering with the order-in-original. The order
\nof the CEGAT, therefore, is liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
22.\t\tFor the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves
\nto be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The order
\npassed by CEGAT is set aside and the order-in-original
\npassed by the Commissioner is restored.\n<\/p>\n
23.\t\tThe learned counsel for the assessee, however,
\nsubmitted that in that case the assessee would be
\nentitled to MODVAT benefits. If it is so, the assessee can
\nclaim the said benefit. We may make it clear that our
\nsetting aside the order passed by CEGAT in this appeal
\nwould not come in the way of the assessee in claiming
\nand getting such benefit, if it is otherwise entitled.\n<\/p>\n
24.\t\tThe appeal is allowed accordingly with no
\norder as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Central Excise, … vs M\/S Mahavir Aluminium Ltd on 11 May, 2007 Author: C Thakker Bench: Ashok Bhan, C.K. Thakker CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6197 of 2001 PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR RESPONDENT: M\/S MAHAVIR ALUMINIUM LTD DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/05\/2007 BENCH: ASHOK BHAN & C.K. THAKKER JUDGMENT: […]<\/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-267547","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M\/S Mahavir Aluminium Ltd on 11 May, 2007 - 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\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-mahavir-aluminium-ltd-on-11-may-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M\/S Mahavir Aluminium Ltd on 11 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-mahavir-aluminium-ltd-on-11-may-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-05-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-31T11:17:41+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-mahavir-aluminium-ltd-on-11-may-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-mahavir-aluminium-ltd-on-11-may-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Central Excise, … vs M\\\/S Mahavir Aluminium Ltd on 11 May, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-05-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-31T11:17:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-mahavir-aluminium-ltd-on-11-may-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1638,\"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\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-mahavir-aluminium-ltd-on-11-may-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-mahavir-aluminium-ltd-on-11-may-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-mahavir-aluminium-ltd-on-11-may-2007\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M\\\/S Mahavir Aluminium Ltd on 11 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-05-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-31T11:17:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-mahavir-aluminium-ltd-on-11-may-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-mahavir-aluminium-ltd-on-11-may-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-mahavir-aluminium-ltd-on-11-may-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Central Excise, … vs M\\\/S Mahavir Aluminium Ltd on 11 May, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M\/S Mahavir Aluminium Ltd on 11 May, 2007 - 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\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-mahavir-aluminium-ltd-on-11-may-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M\/S Mahavir Aluminium Ltd on 11 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-mahavir-aluminium-ltd-on-11-may-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-05-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-31T11:17:41+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-mahavir-aluminium-ltd-on-11-may-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-mahavir-aluminium-ltd-on-11-may-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Central Excise, … vs M\/S Mahavir Aluminium Ltd on 11 May, 2007","datePublished":"2007-05-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-31T11:17:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-mahavir-aluminium-ltd-on-11-may-2007"},"wordCount":1638,"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\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-mahavir-aluminium-ltd-on-11-may-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-mahavir-aluminium-ltd-on-11-may-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-mahavir-aluminium-ltd-on-11-may-2007","name":"Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M\/S Mahavir Aluminium Ltd on 11 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-05-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-31T11:17:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-mahavir-aluminium-ltd-on-11-may-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-mahavir-aluminium-ltd-on-11-may-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-mahavir-aluminium-ltd-on-11-may-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Central Excise, … vs M\/S Mahavir Aluminium Ltd on 11 May, 2007"}]},{"@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\/267547","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=267547"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/267547\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=267547"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=267547"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=267547"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}