Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.33 seconds)
Documents citing Mohan Meakins Breweries Ltd. ... vs Controller Of Weights And ... on 31 January, 1989

Mohan Meakin Ltd. vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 September, 1992

72 and the second judgment was also in the case of M/s. Mohan Meakin Breweries v. The State of U.P. . The judgments interpreted the provisions of the U.P. Excise Manual and the various notifications issued as also the practice by the department as clearly indicating that the excise duty is quantified and collected at the point of the issue of the spirit and not at the point of manufacture. The Allahabad High Court, therefore, said that during transmission of the spirit from the distillation plant to the issue vats through pipes, if certain wastages occur, an allowance should be made in respect of such wastage and excise duty cannot be charged on the shortfall. It said that the U.P. Excise Act provides that excise duty is chargeable only on the issue of the spirit and not on the quantity manufactured. The second judgment follows the earlier judgment. Both these judgments turn upon the provisions of the U.P. Excise Act and are not therefore applicable to the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 which has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as clearly imposing excise and countervailing duty at the point of manufacture and import respectively.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Commissioner Of Sales Tax U.P., Lucknow vs M/S. Sanjiv Fabrics on 10 September, 2010

Reliance was also placed on the decisions of the High Courts in Dyer Meakins Breweries Ltd. Vs. U.P.3; CST Vs. M/S Rama & Sons4; Vijaya Electricals Vs. State of Tamil Nadu5 and Integrated Enterprises Vs. State of Kerala6 in support of the same proposition. It was asserted that in the present cases the items which were included in the Registration Certificate were clearly different and distinct from the items for which Form `C' were issued and therefore, the dealers could not claim that it was a bona fide omission on their part.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 51 - D K Jain - Full Document
1