Tag Archives: Factory

Excisable Goods – Place of Removal

Where the price at which goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee is different for different places of removal, then each such price shall be deemed to be the normal value thereof. Clause (b)(iii) is very important and makes it clear that a depot, the premises of a consignment agent, or any other place or premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory are all places of removal. What is important to note is that each of these premises is referable only to the manufacturer and not to the buyer of excisable goods. The depot, or the premises of a consignment agent of the manufacturer are obviously places which are referable only to the manufacturer. Even the expression “any other place or premises” refers only to a manufacturer’s place or premises because such place or premises is stated to be where excisable goods “are to be sold”. The place or premises from where excisable goods are to be sold can only be the manufacturer’s premises or premises referable to the manufacturer. CCE v. Ispat Industries Ltd., (2016) 1 SCC 631.

Leave a comment

Filed under Place of Removal

Manufacturing Process – Definition of

In Employees State Insurance v. Duncan Gleneagles Hospital Ltd, 2005 LLR 1071 it was held as under:
“The definition of ‘manufacturing process’ includes otherwise treating or adopting any article or substance with a view to its use, sale transport, delivery or disposal. The outcome of the test is recorded through various machineries electronically operated or otherwise. In some cases, these are recorded in special kind of papers or any photo plates or X-ray plates or certain kinds of devices recording Ultra sonographic tests. The process of these tests were not carried on either for making, altering repairing, ornamenting, finishing or otherwise treating or adopting any article or substance, namely, the X-ray plates or the papers or the sonographic records with a view to its use, sale, transport, delivery or disposal. These articles or substances were used in aid of the process for the examination or the tests carried on. It is the report of the test, which is produced. It is the service of preparing the report or diagnosis is the service rendered. The process is not undertaken for the purpose of production of any article or substance in the form of developed X-ray films or sonographic records or anything else. If it is interpreted in such a manner, then in that event, even printing floppies or writing disks or typing of papers in course of any business or commerce or any office or administration would also amount to undertaking of manufacturing process since floppies, disks, Xerox and typing are undertaken for the use or disposal. But if the pathological laboratory undertakes tapping of blood and process the same and use the same for the purpose of sale or transfusion or otherwise use thereof, the same may be a manufacturing process. But the pathological tests would not amount to manufacturing process even though the production of the developed X-ray films or sonography reports may amount to manufacturing process otherwise in some other context. It has to be reconciled with the purpose and object for which it is being used or utilized. Rajesh Saigal v. State of Haryana, 2015 (146) FLR 588.

Leave a comment

Filed under Commercial Law, Manufacturing Process

Workman – Accident and Injury

‘Accident’ and ‘Injury’ are distinct in cases where accident is an event happening externally to a man, eg., when a workman falls from the ladder and suffers injury. The less obvious cases of accident are strain causing rupture, bursting of aneurism, failure of muscular action of the heart, exposure to draught causing chill, etc. Such accidents can be called as internal accidents. In such cases, it is hardly possible to distinguish between the ‘accident’ and ‘injury’. The rupture is an accident, at the same time injury leading to death or incapacity at once or after a lapse of time. Thus in cases of internal accidents, “Accident” and “Injury” coincide. But the common factor in all cases of accident, whether internal or external is some concrete happening at a definite point of time and incapacity resulting from such happening. An accident happening to a person in or about any premises at which, he is for the time being employed for the purpose of his Employer’s trade or business shall be deemed to raise out of and in the course of employment.
At times accident need not be due to immediate cause or as a result of collusion or sudden mishap. Even a non-spontaneous injury resulting in death or causing injury to workman during the course or arising out of employment can also be termed as accidental injury.
The word ‘Injury’ includes physiological injury. The physiological injury suffered by a workman due mainly to the progress of a disease unconnected with employment, may amount to an injury arising out of and in the course of employment if the work which the workman was doing at the time of the occurrence of the injury contributed to its occurrence. The connection between the injury and employment may be furnished by ordinary strain of ordinary work if the strain did in fact contribute to or accelerate or hasten the injury. M.D., Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Jayalakshmi, 2014 (142) FLR 978.

Leave a comment

Filed under Accident and Injury, Labour Law