Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 51 (0.67 seconds)
Documents citing Collector Of Central Excise,Guntur vs Andhra Sugar Ltd on 26 October, 1988

Ami Pigments Pvt. Ltd., Thr' Its ... vs State Of Gujarat, Thr' Secretary And ... on 23 April, 2007

In support of this submission, the learned Counsel placed reliance on the decisions in (1) K.P. Varghese v. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam (supra); (2) Commr. of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Indra Industries (supra); (3) Collector of Central Excise, Guntur v. Andhra Sugar Ltd. (supra); (4) State of Karnataka v. Balaji Computers (supra) and (5) Govind Prasad v. R.G.Prasad and Ors. .
Gujarat High Court Cites 84 - Cited by 76 - J M Panchal - Full Document

Shalimar Chemical Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs Collr. Of C. Ex. on 24 October, 1990

In the abovesaid decision, their Lordships of the Supreme Court approved the decision of the Government of India in Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. dated 14th September, 1989. The Government of India in that case held that the requirement of end-use though not built into the exemption notification, is not only implied but also becomes imperative in a situation where the product has uses other than as drug intermediate whereas the exemption is limited to drug intermediate i.e. when the product is used as a drug intermediate.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 8 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And Ors. vs Jharna Sarkar And Ors. on 10 February, 2004

(iii)1989, Supplementary-I, Supreme Court Cases, page 144 (Collector of Central Excise, Guntur v. Andhra Sugar Ltd. Venkataraypurama): Here the Apex Court came to conclusion that Court while construing a statute would give much weight to the interpretation put upon it at the time of its enactment and since by those whose duty has been to construe, execute and apply the same enactment.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 7 - A K Banerjee - Full Document

Aravali Forgings Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 24 August, 1993

(a) We can straightaway reject these grounds assigned by Revenue for the sole reason that the basis of invoking the HSN explanatory note is itself erroneous, as the respective tariff entries had not been aligned for the period in question were all prior to 1-3-1988 and also that the HSN explanatory notes are only having a mere persuasive value and the real test is the trade and commercial understanding of the product and the technical sense in which it is understood. We can also set aside the revenue's reasoning for the simple reason that the revenue has not discharged its burden of classification by classifying the goods under residuary item of 7308.90 and also having not assigned any reasons for classifying under this heading except by a mere process of rejecting tariff sub-heading 7208.00 and then saying that the goods fall under sub-heading 7308.90. This method of classifying the goods has been deprecated in several rulings and now it is well settled that the duty of classifying the goods has to be done after proper investigation and after finding out the manner in which the goods are understood in trade or by the people who deal with them (M/s. Atul Glass Ltd. (P) Ltd. (ibid). Further, the authorities vested with the duty of classifying the goods are bound by the directions, instructions and circulars issued by the Board, a highest body. In this case, the ld. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi has held that he is not bound by it. L333d. CDR has pointed out that the circular had not been issued under Section 37(B) of the Act and Hon'ble Supreme Court ruling rendered in Orient Paper Mills Ltd. [1978 (2) E.L.T. (J. 345)] while the Counsels have relied on the ruling rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd. case (ibid), Collector of Central Excise v. Andhra Sugar Ltd. and the ruling of Gujarat High Court in the case of Air Control & Chemical Engg. Co. Ltd. (ibid).
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 30 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Transcab International vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 11 February, 2003

and in Collector of Central Excise v. Andhra Sugar - 1988 (38) E.L.T. 564 (S.C). In the first case, the Apex Court dealt with departmental clarification which interpreted the scope of different Tariff items and issued opinions regarding classification of specific items. It was held that such circular issued by Board will be binding on the Departmental Authorities. In the 2nd case, the Apex Court held that meaning ascribed by the authority issuing a notification is a good guide of a contemporaneous exposition of the position of Law. In the instant case, the clarification issued by TRU was neither in regard to scope of Tariff item nor in regard to meaning of any expression contained in the notification.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 7 July, 1994

20. Such an interpretation can be adopted as a useful guide as has been spelt out in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Guntur v. Andhra Sugar Ltd. -1988 (38) E.L.T. 564. There also reliance was placed by the petitioner on a decision in Revision Application by the Govt. of India. The Supreme Court noted two orders in Revision by the Government on the issue and observed as follows:
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 23 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Indian Explosives Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 14 August, 1995

This very notification came up for interpretation before the Government of India in its order in review No. 248 of 1979 in respect of an order passed by Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi in the case of Shriram Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. It was held that the Assistant Collector was bound first to work out the duty as would be leviable i.e. ex-factory wholesale price as if the amount of FPEC was not paid and, thereafter on being satisfied that it has been so deposited by the manufacturer as per the stipulated undertaking, the Assistant Collector was then to deduct the duty on the FPEC (on Rs. 610 @ 15% = Rs. 91.50) from the duty worked out earlier. It is now well settled that such interpretation by the Government of India has to be given due weight as it is in the nature of contemporaneous exposition. See Supreme Court decision in the case of C.C.E. Guntur v. Andhra Sugar Ltd. - 1989 (19) E.C.C. 46.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 11 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next