{"id":46588,"date":"2004-11-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-11-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kores-india-ltd-chennai-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004"},"modified":"2018-12-14T10:43:43","modified_gmt":"2018-12-14T05:13:43","slug":"ms-kores-india-ltd-chennai-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kores-india-ltd-chennai-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. Kores India Ltd., Chennai vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, … on 23 November, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M\/S. Kores India Ltd., Chennai vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, … on 23 November, 2004<\/div>\n
Author: A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, C.K.Thakker<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  4322 of 1999\n\nPETITIONER:\nM\/s. Kores India Ltd., Chennai\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCommissioner of Central Excise, Chennai\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/11\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nARIJIT PASAYAT & C.K.THAKKER\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
With<\/p>\n
[C.A. Nos. 2682-2690 of 2000]<\/p>\n
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThese appeals are inter-linked. In Civil Appeal No.4322 of 1999
\nM\/s Kores India Ltd., Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the
\n‘assessee’) calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by the
\nCustoms, Excise and (Gold) Control Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal
\nBench, Chennai (in short the ‘Tribunal’) holding that demand for duty
\nraised in respect of typerwriter\/telex ribbons is in order.  In the
\nconnected appeals Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore calls in
\nquestion legality of the New Delhi Bench of CEGAT taking a divergent
\nview in holding that duty was not payable.\n<\/p>\n
\tBackground facts in a nutshell are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\tSo far as civil appeal no.4322\/1999 is concerned, show cause
\nnotice was issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Chennai (in short
\nthe ‘Commissioner’) on 22.3.1993, inter alia, proposing levy of duty on
\nthe typewriter ribbons cleared by the assessee during the period
\n1.3.1988 to 30.9.1992 by invoking extended period of limitation under
\nproviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (in
\nshort the ‘Act’).  In the reply to the show cause notice, assessee took
\nthe stand that no process of manufacturing is involved in the concerned
\ntransaction.  Assessee receives excise duty paid on typewriter\/telex
\nribbons in jumbo rolls of 210 mtrs. or more length from two small scale
\nunits in Madras. In the assessee’s factory typewriter rolls are fed
\ninto cutting and spooling machines wherein the ribbons of standard
\nlength of 10 mtrs. and 5 metrs. are cut and spooled into metal spoons.
\nThe ribbons in spools are packed and sold by the assessee.  With
\nreference to Heading 96.12 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff
\nAct, 1985 (in short the ‘Tariff Act’) it was submitted that since
\nappropriate central excise duty had been levied on the rolls there is
\nno question of paying any further duty.  Apart from cutting of ribbons
\ninto standard pre-determined lengths, the assessee does not take any
\nactivity on the ribbons received.  It is to be noted that by order-in-
\noriginal no.40\/93 dated 19.8.1993 passed by the Collector of Central
\nExcise, duty of Rs.2,89,76000\/- was levied on clearance of carbon
\npapers and typewriter ribbons from the assessee’s factory at Madras.
\nDuty was affirmed under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (in
\nshort the ‘Rules’) read with proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A
\nof the Act. Further demand of Rs.2,14,066\/- was confirmed on seized
\ncarbon papers and ribbons. Seized goods of both varieties valued at
\nRs.5,36,276.36 were held to be liable for confiscation and were
\nreleased by enforcing the Bank Guarantee furnished to the extent of
\nRs.50,000\/-.  Collector also levied penalty of Rs.30 lakhs under Rule
\n173Q of the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
\tShow cause notice related to the two products i.e. carbon papers
\nfor the period 1.3.88 to September, 1992 and typewriter\/Telex ribbons
\nfor the period 1.4.88 to September, 1992.  The present dispute relates
\nonly to typewriter\/telex ribbons.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe CEGAT held that the cutting of ribbons in smaller size and
\nspooling them into on the automatic spooling machines amounts to
\nmanufacture and, therefore, duty is payable on these ribbons. The
\nconversion is done as per requirement of consumers in different spools
\nto suit Typewriter machines of different brand names. Ribbons received
\nby the Madras Unit cannot be supplied to the customers in the form
\nreceived by merely reducing the length by cutting. It is further held
\nthat the product becomes saleable commodity only after it is spooled
\naccording to the desired sizes and, therefore, excise duty is payable
\nas a new and distinct identity is acquired.  The factual findings
\nrecorded by the Collector were affirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the connected appeals the stand of the assessee was accepted
\nand the levy of duty by the Collector of Central Excise, Indore was
\ndeleted. While the Chennai Bench observed that manufacturing process
\nwas involved the New Delhi Bench held otherwise. It was concluded that
\nmanufacturing of ink ribbon is complete without process of cartridges
\nand that Chapter Heading 96.12 does not make any distinction in
\nCartridges and the cassettes.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn support of civil appeal no.4322\/1999 Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran,
\nlearned counsel submitted that CEGAT was not justified in holding that
\nany manufacturing process was involved.  According to him cutting the
\njumbo rolls into the smaller size may amount to processing but by no
\nstretch of imagination it amounts to manufacturing.  Reference was made
\nto Prince Khadi Woollen Handloom Prod. Coop. Indl. Society  v. C.C.E.
\n[1996 (88) ELT 637 (SC)] and Union of India v. J.G. Glass Industries
\nLtd.<\/a> [1998 (97) ELT 5 (SC)] to buttress the plea. It was submitted that
\nwhenever the intention was to include a particular activity within the
\nmanufacturing activity it was specifically provided.  Reference was
\nmade to Chapters 37, 48 and 85 of the Tariff Act, as position stands in
\n2002-2003. In any event, according to him, the extended period of
\nlimitation was not available to be applied because to infer suppression
\nof facts something more than mere bonafide mistake was necessary to be
\nestablished by the Revenue.  As a matter of fact, various authorities
\nhave entertained doubt as to whether the activities in question
\ninvolved manufacturing process. Particular reference was made to the
\nNew Delhi Bench judgment of CEGAT which is the subject matter of appeal
\nin civil appeal nos.2682-2690\/2000.\n<\/p>\n
Burden is on the Revenue to prove manufacture.  Strong reliance
\nwas placed on Aman Marble Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.  Collector of C.Ex.,
\nJaipur<\/a> [2003 (156) ELT 396 (SC)] which involves cutting of marble
\nblocks into slabs. It was pointed out that if cutting of the blocks of
\nmarble into slabs does not amount to manufacturing, as was held by this
\nCourt, there is no reason to adopt a different yardstick so far as
\ncutting of typewriter rolls of ribbons into smaller sizes is concerned.\n<\/p>\n
At this juncture it is necessary to note that the duty component
\ninvolved in the present dispute after grant of revenue by the CEGAT in
\nrespect of carbon paper is Rs.42,72,308.03. This was in addition to
\nRs.54,335\/- which related to seized articles. Penalty was limited to
\nRupees 5 lakhs.  In civil appeal nos.2682-2690\/2000 the duty involved
\nis Rs.70,22,974.46\/-, which was deleted by the impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
In response, Mr. M. Parasaran, learned ASG, submitted that nature
\nof activity has been analysed in great detail by the Collector and
\nCEGAT. Taking note of the factual position it has been concluded that
\nmanufacturing activity is involved.  It has been clearly established
\nthat different commercial commodity has come into existence and the
\ncommodity which was already in existence serves no purpose and no
\ncommercial use after the process.  A new name and character has come
\ninto existence.  The original commodity after processing does not
\npossess original identity.  It is pointed out that there cannot be
\nbonafide doubt in the mind of assessee in not obtaining licence and not
\ndisclosing the turnovers. With clear knowledge that the process
\ninvolved manufacture, the activity was undertaken and, therefore, duty
\nwas payable. It is the legal duty of the assessee to take out the
\nlicence and pay duty.  It has been deliberately avoided to be done with
\nmalafide intention and, therefore, there was clear case of suppression
\nof facts attracting extended period of limitation.\n<\/p>\n
In Black’s Law Dictionary, (5th Edition), the word ‘manufacture’
\nhas been defined as, “the process or operation  of making goods or any
\nmaterial produced by hand, by machinery or by other agency; by the
\nhand, by machinery, or by art.  The production of articles for use from
\nraw or prepared materials by giving such materials new forms,
\nqualities, properties or combinations, whether by hand labour or
\nmachine”. Thus by process by manufacture something is produced and
\nbrought into existence which is different from that out of which it is
\nmade in the sense that the thing produced is by itself a commercial
\ncommodity capable of being sold or supplied. The material from which
\nthe thing or product is manufactured may necessarily lose its identity
\nor may become transformed into the basic or essential properties.  (See
\nDeputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes),
\nErnakulam v. M\/s. Coco Fibres<\/a> (1992 Supp. (1) SCC 290).\n<\/p>\n
Manufacture implies a change but every change is not manufacture,
\nyet every change of an article is the result of treatment, labour and
\nmanipulation.  Naturally, manufacture is the end result of one or more
\nprocesses through which the original commodities are made to pass.  The
\nnature and extent of processing may vary from one class to another.
\nThere may be several stages of processing, a different kind of
\nprocessing at each stage.  With each process suffered the original
\ncommodity experiences a change.  Whenever a commodity undergoes a
\nchange as a result of some operation performed on it or in regard to
\nit, such operation would amount to processing of the commodity. But it
\nis only when the change or a series of changes takes the commodity to
\nthe point where commercially it can no longer be regarded as the
\noriginal commodity but instead is recognized as a new and distinct
\narticle that a manufacture can be said to take place. Process in
\nmanufacture or in relation to manufacture implies not only the
\nproduction but also various stages through which the raw material is
\nsubjected to change by different operations. It is the cumulative
\neffect of the various processes to which the raw material is subjected
\nto (sic that the) manufactured product emerges. Therefore, each step
\ntowards such production would be a process in relation to the
\nmanufacture. Where any particular process is so integrally connected
\nwith the ultimate production of goods that but for that process
\nprocessing of goods would be impossible or commercially inexpedient,
\nthat process is one in relation to the manufacture.  (See Collector of
\nCentral Excise, Jaipur v. Rajasthan State Chemical Works, Deedwana,
\nRajasthan<\/a> (1991 (4) SCC 473).\n<\/p>\n
‘Manufacture’ is a transformation of an article, which is
\ncommercially different from the one, which is converted.  The essence
\nof manufacture is the change of one object to another for the purpose
\nof making it marketable. The essential point thus is that in
\nmanufacture something is brought into existence, which is different
\nfrom that, which originally existed in the sense that the thing
\nproduced is by itself a commercially different commodity whereas in the
\ncase of processing it is not necessary to produce a commercially
\ndifferent article. (See M\/s. Saraswati Sugar Mills and others v.
\nHaryana State Board and others<\/a> (1992 (1) SCC 418).\n<\/p>\n
The prevalent and generally accepted test to ascertain that there
\nis ‘manufacture’ is whether the change or the series of changes brought
\nabout by the application of processes take the commodity to the point
\nwhere, commercially, it can no longer be regarded as the original
\ncommodity but is, instead, recognized as a distinct and new article
\nthat has emerged as a result of the process.  There might be borderline
\ncases where either conclusion with equal justification can be reached.
\nInsistence on any sharp or intrinsic distinction between ‘processing
\nand manufacture’, results in an oversimplification of both and tends to
\nblur their interdependence.  (See Ujagar Prints v. Union of India<\/a> (1989
\n(3) SCC 488).\n<\/p>\n
To put differently, the test to determine whether a particular
\nactivity amounts to ‘manufacture’ or not is: Does new and different
\ngoods emerge having distinctive name, use and character. The moment
\nthere is transformation into a new commodity commercially known as a
\ndistinct and separate commodity having its own character, use and name,
\nwhether be it the result of one process or several processes
\n‘manufacture’ takes place and liability to duty is attracted.
\nEtymologically the word ‘manufacture’ properly construed would
\ndoubtless cover the transformation.  It is the transformation of a
\nmatter into something else and that something else is a question of
\ndegree, whether that something else is a different commercial commodity
\nhaving its distinct character, use and name and commercially known as
\nsuch from that point of view is a question depending upon the facts and
\ncircumstances of the case.  (See Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of
\nIndia (1985 (3) SCC 314).\n<\/p>\n
Keeping in view the aforesaid principles it has to be examined
\nwhether the Collector and CEGAT were justified in holding that
\nmanufacturing activities were made out.  As appears from the order of
\nthe Collector, reference was made to the statements given by two
\nofficials of the assessee.  Ribbon in rolls of 210 mtrs. and above in
\nlength are purchased from M\/s Solar Packaging (P) Ltd., Madras and M\/s
\nSaket Stationery Mfg. Co. Bombay. The said Jumbo rolls were fed into
\ncutting and splitting machines in their premises and ribbons of
\nstandard lengths of 10 mtrs. and 5 mtrs. were cut\/slit and subsequently
\nwound\/spooled on the metal spools and 10 such spools are blister packed
\nand sealed with aluminium foil. It was categorically observed that the
\nassessee produced ribbons in spools out of Jumbo rolls and the
\nresultant product is a distinct, identifiable article having distinct
\nname, function and use. The resultant product is also commercially
\ndistinct as understood in commercial parlance and has a separate
\nmarket. Their function and use are also completely different and both
\nproducts are not inter-changeable. The ribbon in Jumbo rolls cannot be
\nused in a typewriter and similarly a person who requires 30 pieces of
\nspool ribbon will not be satisfied if he is offered Jumbo rolls of
\nequal length. In fact, assessee has a separate unit, machinery and work
\nforce to manufacture in spool form. In that view of the matter, it was
\nheld that the process involved amounted to manufacturing.\n<\/p>\n
At this juncture it is relevant to point out that the assessee
\nhad contended before the Collector that the inputs\/raw materials used
\nhave suffered excise duty and if any duty is payable, they should be
\nallowed Modvat credit and the proportionate amount on account of such
\ncredit should be deducted from the proposed demand.  This plea was
\nturned out as required documentary evidence to show that entire
\nquantity of inputs used have suffered tax was not produced. Before
\nCEGAT it was accepted that there was possibility that manufacturers
\nwere operating under exemption available to SSI Units and the goods
\nwould have discharged “nil” duty. It was also accepted that since the
\ngoods were received from the depots and not directly received from one
\nfactory, therefore, any duty (paying documents) were not available. It
\nis to be noted that once the Jumbo rolls are cut into smaller sizes,
\nthey completely lost their earlier identity and cannot be used for the
\nsame purpose as was done before cutting.  In a hypothetical case, even
\nif the smaller sized ribbons are stitched together or fixed together in
\nany manner, there is no possibility of its use as Jumboo rolls.  The
\nfactual findings recorded that the processing resulted in coming into
\nexistence of a commercial product having distinct name, character, and
\nuse are on terra firma. No case is made out for interference with the
\nfactual findings.\n<\/p>\n
Coming to the plea of limitation CEGAT noticed that there was
\nmanufacturing and removal under Rule 9(1) at the Madras unit and,
\ntherefore, demand of duty under Rule 9(2) read with Section 11A was
\napplicable.  It was concluded that there was clear contravention of
\nRule 9(1) with the intention to evade. Therefore, the contention that
\nthe assessee harboured bonafide and germine belief of the non-
\nexciseability of the product was not acceptable. No clarification from
\nthe department was sought for and accordingly extended period of
\nlimitation was applicable.\n<\/p>\n
In M\/s Padmini Products v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore<\/a>
\n(1989 (4) SCC 275) it was observed with reference to earlier judgment
\nin CCE v. Chmphar Drugs and Liniments, Hyderabad (1989 (2) SCC 127)
\nthat in order to avail limitation beyond a period of six months and up
\nto a period of five years, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1) of
\nSection 11A of the Act, it had to be established that the duty of
\nexcise had not been levied or paid or short-levied or short-paid, or
\nerroneously refunded by reason of either fraud or collusion or wilful
\nmis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any provision
\nof the Act or Rules made thereunder, with intent to evade payment of
\nduty. It was observed that something positive other than mere inaction
\nor failure on the part of the manufacturer or producer or conscious or
\ndeliberate withholding of information which the manufacturer knew
\notherwise, is required to be established before it is saddled with any
\nliability beyond the period of six months. Whether, in a particular set
\nof facts and circumstances, there was any fraud or collusion or wilful
\nmis-statement or suppression of facts contravention of any provision of
\nthe Act, is a question of fact depending upon the facts and
\ncircumstances of a particular case.\n<\/p>\n
It is to be noted that strong reliance was placed on Government
\nOrder passed in 1982 ELT 4840 A (GOI), dated 16.1.1982 to contend that
\nthere was bona fide plea about non-exciseability. Reference was also
\nmade to the order passed by the New Delhi Bench which is the subject
\nmatter of challenge in the connected appeals and the order dated
\n12.4.1996 passed by a Collector who dropped the proceedings initiated.
\nExcept the Government of India’s order, all other orders were passed
\nsubsequent to the issuance of the show cause notice.  In this case the
\nassessee could not have anticipated any such adjudication at the
\nrelevant point of view.  Further, Government of India’s order did not
\nrelate to ribbons.  In any event, the Collector factually focussed on
\nthe conduct of the assessee to conclude lack of bonafides.  At no point
\nof time the Department was informed about manufacturing activity
\nundertaken at their unit at Madras as required under law and, there was
\nsuppression of facts relating to manufacturing and removal of such
\ngoods.  In this context, the Collector observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“Further perusal of invoices prepared for sale
\neffected from Madras indicate that the price quoted is
\ninclusive of excise duty whereas in reality they did not
\npay for Central Excise duty at all for the goods produced
\nat Madras.  This apart, perusal of copies of Price Lists;
\nand certain gate passes seized from the Make up Depot
\ndisclosed that KIL, were manufacturing identical goods in
\nquestion in their Thane Unit apart from other varieties.
\nThe goods in question have been appropriately classified as
\ngoods falling under 48.16 and 96.12 respectively and
\ncleared on payment of duty.  The copies of price list
\nclearly indicate that KIL have filed price list and sought
\napproval of assessable value for the goods in question.
\nThese factors goes to show that M\/s KIL had clear knowledge
\nthat the subject goods are excisable goods and are eligible
\nto duty under Chapter 48.16 and 96.12 respectively.
\nKnowing fully well about the classification and the
\nobligation, they have deliberately suppressed the materials
\nfacts in so far as their Madras Unit is concerned and have
\nevaded payment of Central Excise duty.  In the
\ncircumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the charge
\nof suppression of fact and removal of goods in
\ncontravention of Rules with intent to evade payment of duty
\nis fully established and the extended time limit under Rule
\n9(2) read with proviso to Section 11A is invokable for
\ndemand duty.”\n<\/p>\n
In view of the factual position as noted by the Collector and
\naffirmed by the CEGAT there is no substance in the plea that the
\nextended period of limitation was not applicable.\n<\/p>\n
It is noted in the Collector’s order with reference to the price
\nlists, and some gate-passes seized from the Make up depot, that the
\nassessee was manufacturing identical goods in their Thane unit apart
\nfrom other varieties. Additionally, with reference to sales invoices it
\nwas noted that the price quoted is inclusive of excise duty, though no
\nexcise duty was paid in respect of the goods which according to Revenue
\nwas manufactured at Madras.\n<\/p>\n
As noted above, looked from any angle order of the Collector as
\naffirmed on the point involved by CEGAT does not warrant any
\ninterference being based factual conclusions which cannot be termed as
\nperverse.  The conclusions are based on relevant materials. Civil
\nAppeal No. 4322\/1999 is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Coming to the other appeals, in view of the position indicated in
\ndetail in civil appeal No. 4322\/1999, these appeals deserve to be
\nallowed and are accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to
\ncosts in these appeals.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M\/S. Kores India Ltd., Chennai vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, … on 23 November, 2004 Author: A Pasayat Bench: Arijit Pasayat, C.K.Thakker CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4322 of 1999 PETITIONER: M\/s. Kores India Ltd., Chennai RESPONDENT: Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/11\/2004 BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & 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-46588","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S. Kores India Ltd., Chennai vs Commissioner 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\/ms-kores-india-ltd-chennai-vs-commissioner-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=\"M\/S. Kores India Ltd., Chennai vs Commissioner 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\/ms-kores-india-ltd-chennai-vs-commissioner-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=\"2018-12-14T05:13:43+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-kores-india-ltd-chennai-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-kores-india-ltd-chennai-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. Kores India Ltd., Chennai vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, … on 23 November, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-14T05:13:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-kores-india-ltd-chennai-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004\"},\"wordCount\":3404,\"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\\\/ms-kores-india-ltd-chennai-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-kores-india-ltd-chennai-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-kores-india-ltd-chennai-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Kores India Ltd., Chennai vs Commissioner 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\":\"2018-12-14T05:13:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-kores-india-ltd-chennai-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-kores-india-ltd-chennai-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-kores-india-ltd-chennai-vs-commissioner-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\":\"M\\\/S. Kores India Ltd., Chennai vs Commissioner 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":"M\/S. Kores India Ltd., Chennai vs Commissioner 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\/ms-kores-india-ltd-chennai-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. Kores India Ltd., Chennai vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 23 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kores-india-ltd-chennai-vs-commissioner-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":"2018-12-14T05:13:43+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kores-india-ltd-chennai-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kores-india-ltd-chennai-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. Kores India Ltd., Chennai vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, … on 23 November, 2004","datePublished":"2004-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-14T05:13:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kores-india-ltd-chennai-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004"},"wordCount":3404,"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\/ms-kores-india-ltd-chennai-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kores-india-ltd-chennai-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kores-india-ltd-chennai-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004","name":"M\/S. Kores India Ltd., Chennai vs Commissioner 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":"2018-12-14T05:13:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kores-india-ltd-chennai-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kores-india-ltd-chennai-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-23-november-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kores-india-ltd-chennai-vs-commissioner-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":"M\/S. Kores India Ltd., Chennai vs Commissioner 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\/46588","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=46588"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46588\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=46588"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=46588"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=46588"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}