Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.69 seconds)
Documents citing Darshan Hosiery Works vs Union Of India on 11 April, 1980

Gopal Hosiery vs Assistant Collector Of C. Ex. on 8 April, 1988

34. The respondents have referred to Section 6 to suggest that the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Darshan Hosiery Works v. Union of India, 1980 E.L.T. 390 is wrong. The argument is that under Section 6 if the goods are treated as specified in the First Schedule a licence would be necessary even if they are not excisable. This is a misreading of the provisions of Section 6 which are for convenience set out below : -
Calcutta High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - S C Sen - Full Document

Khader Knitting Company vs Collector Of Central Excise on 16 August, 1983

6. Shri K.K. Kapoor, at the outset, invited attention to the observation in the notice to show cause as well as in the orders where the appellants are throughout described as "manufacturers of hosiery garments". He stated, that the items being produced by them are 'Jangias' and 'Banians', and that the appellants had staked their claim to the exemption based on the two Notifications relatable to the number of workers on the assumption, which was then prevailing uniformly, that these articles of hosiery having been excluded from the scope of Tariff Entry 22D of the C.E.T., would automatically go to the Residuary Item 68, and that on this assumption, the appellants had claimed benefit of the Exemption Notifications. He pleaded that this was a wrong assumption on everybody's part, and that the matter has been set at rest by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Darshan Hosiery Works v. Union of India reported in 1980 E.L.T. 390 (Guj.) where their Lordships held that any goods which have reference in any of the specific tariif entry, even by way of exclusion, has to be treated to be article, as specified in the C.E.T., with the result that once an articles finds mention in any context in any Tariff Entry, it cannot be taken to the Residuary Item 68, which covers the goods: "not elsewhere specified".
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 2 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Gopal Hosiery vs Assistant Collector Of Central Excise on 16 March, 1992

"In view of the judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of Darshan Hosiery Works v. Union of India, , the respondents are directed to refund the amount of tax collected Rs. 1,11,580.86 p. by way of refund for the period 1st March, 1975 to 30th June, 1977. It is made clear that the petitioner will not be entitled to pay interest on this amount. The petitioner will also not be entitled to any other amount apart from what is granted by the Department".
Calcutta High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - S C Sen - Full Document

Collector Of C. Ex. vs Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan on 5 July, 1989

It may be seen that Ayurvedic medicines were clearly excluded from scope of the said item. In 1975 an omnibus residuary Item No. 68 was inserted in the CET to cover all goods not elsewhere specified in Item Nos. 1 to 67 of the Schedule. The dispute arose whether the goods excluded from the other entries in the Schedule would fall within the residuary Item No. 68. This dispute reached the Gujarat High Court in the case of Darshan Hosiery Works v. Union of India -1980 (6) E.L.T. 390 (Guj.). The Court held that the expression "not elsewhere specified" in Item No. 68 meant the total omission or failure to specify goods in the Schedule either for the purpose of taxability or for the purpose of exemption from liability to duty. Therefore, once an article or goods is specified in any of the Tariff Items, 1 to 67, irrespective of the purpose for which they are specified, Item 68 does not come into play and does not render such goods liable to duty. Applying the ratio of the judgment it will be seen that since Ayurvedic medicines are specified in Item No. 14E-though for the purpose of exclusion, they would not fall under Item No. 68 CET. It was evidently to overcome the effect of the above judgment that an explanation was inserted in Item No. 68 CET by the Finance Bill, 1980, reading as follows :-
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Collector Of Customs vs Rashtriya Metal Industries on 1 March, 1988

17. The respondents' argument that their goods consist only of junk from worn and damaged products does not help them in view of what was said earlier to the effect that the scrap being imported goods it is liable to duty. The six authorities cited by the learned advocate do not, therefore, help them. The judgments in Garware Nylons (supra) and Darshan Hosiery (supra) cited by the learned Advocate do not also help them for the same reason. The Board's circular and the opinion of the Ministry of Law are not statutory and are not binding. Anyway, they referred to central excise duty and what we are considering here is additional duty of customs.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. D.P. Jain And Company ... vs The Union Of India Through The Secretary ... on 18 July, 2016

73. Then, Mr. Sridharan places reliance on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Darshan Hosiery Works vs. Union of India3. Reliance by Mr. Sridharan on this judgment also is totally misplaced. The contentions in the petition before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court centered around the interpretation of Item 22D and Item 68 in the first Schedule of the Central Excise Act, 1944. After reproducing these articles, the Division Bench held that the goods which are specifically referred to in Item 22 having been exempted from tax, they cannot be brought to tax by relying on the residual entry. It is in that context that the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon the principle that when there is a law generally dealing with a subject and another dealing with one of the topics comprised therein, then, general law is to be 3 1980 (6) ELT 390 Page 47 of 61 J.V.Salunke,PA ::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2016 23:59:37 ::: Judgment-WP.7890.2015.doc construed as yielding to the special in respect of matters comprised therein. We do not think this principle in para 8 would be said to be attracted and can be applied to the facts of the present case. Here, we have two definitions which are to be found to understand the whole gamut of services brought to tax. To encompass almost all the services for bringing them in the tax net, their definitions are worded accordingly. We cannot ignore the plain words by applying the above principle.
Bombay High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - S C Dharmadhikari - Full Document

D.P. Jain And Co. Infrastructure Pvt. ... vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... on 18 July, 2016

73. Then, Mr. Sridharan places reliance on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Darshan Hosiery Works vs. Union of India3. Reliance by Mr. Sridharan on this judgment also is totally misplaced. The contentions in the petition before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court centered around the interpretation of Item 22D and Item 68 in the first Schedule of the Central Excise Act, 1944. After reproducing these articles, the Division Bench held that the goods which are specifically referred to in Item 22 having been exempted from tax, they cannot be brought to tax by relying on the residual entry. It is in that context that the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon the principle that when there is a law generally dealing with a subject and another dealing with one of the topics comprised therein, then, general law is to be 3 1980 (6) ELT 390 Page 47 of 61 J.V.Salunke,PA ::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2016 23:59:49 ::: Judgment-WP.7890.2015.doc construed as yielding to the special in respect of matters comprised therein. We do not think this principle in para 8 would be said to be attracted and can be applied to the facts of the present case. Here, we have two definitions which are to be found to understand the whole gamut of services brought to tax. To encompass almost all the services for bringing them in the tax net, their definitions are worded accordingly. We cannot ignore the plain words by applying the above principle.
Bombay High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 1 - S C Dharmadhikari - Full Document
1   2 3 Next