Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.34 seconds)
Documents citing Collector Of Central Excise vs Alco Industries on 7 February, 1991

Santha Industrials vs Collector Of Central Excise on 26 May, 1995

We notice from para (3) of the reply to the show-cause notice that the appellants have challenged the raising of demand under sub-heading 8509.00 and have also urged that the wet grinders are without any electric motors attached thereto at the time of removal. It has also been pleaded that electric motors are separately procured by buyers and it is [connected] by 'V'-Belt. Therefore, the ld. Collector ought to have examined this contention and determined the correct classification. The tariff sub-heading 8509.00 is for 'Electro-mechanical domestic appliances with self-contained electric motor'. Therefore, a wet grinder without a self-contained electric motor, will not, prima facie, fall under this sub-heading. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Alco Industries as reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 184 (Mad.) has held that in paras 13 & 14 of the judgment at page 188 as follows :
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vivek Re-Rolling Mills vs Collector Of Central Excise on 21 July, 1994

As held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Collector of C. Excise v. Alco Industries, reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 184 in interpreting a taxing statute the words used therein have to be construed in their own context and in the sense as ordinarily understood by people usually conversant and dealing in such goods and scientific, technical or dictionary meaning should not be mechanically adopted.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 12 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Supreme Oil Industries Ltd. And Anr. vs Special Secretary, Finance (Taxation) ... on 19 April, 2002

The other decision on which the reliance was placed was given in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Alco Industries reported in (1991) 55 ELT 184 (Mad.). In that case, the meaning of the expression "domestic electrical appliance" came up for consideration and the learned Judges in para 10 of the said judgment have held that in interpreting the tariff item or a taxable entry, scientific, technical or dictionary meaning should not be mechanically adopted. The meaning of such words should be construed in their own context in the sense as ordinary people understood in dealing with the such goods.
Calcutta High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - A K Ganguly - Full Document

Workwell Engineering Co. vs Collector Of C. Excise on 15 April, 1994

8. On a careful consideration of the submissions, it is seen that the Honourable High Court of Gujarat in the appellants' own case had held that the goods were not classifiable as a domestic electrical appliances within the entry 33C of the erstwhile Tariff. The learned Counsel submitted that this view was also taken by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Alco Industries as reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 184 (Mad.). Therefore, the question falling for our determination is the classification to be adopted under the new Tariff Act under different tariff descriptions. The Revenue wants classification under sub-heading 85.09 as "Electro-mechanical appliances with self-contained as electric motor". This tariff entry reads similar to the one under item 33C which reads - 'Domestic electric appliances not elsewhere specified'. Explanation-I: 'Domestic electrical appliances' means electrical appliances normally used in the household and similar appliances used in hotels restaurants, hostels, offices, educational institutions, hospitals, train kitchens, air craft or ships' pantries, canteens, tailoring establishments, laundry shops and hair dressing saloons". After a detailed examination by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, the High Court came to the conclusion that Gharghanti which is a domestic grinder flour mill without any inbuilt electric motor is not attracted within the Tariff Item 33C of the erstwhile Tariff. This view was also confirmed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court. In the noted case the Hon'ble High Court had held that wet grinder is not a domestic electrical appliances.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Gurukrupa Trading Co. Ltd. vs Collr. Of Central Excise on 15 November, 1996

In the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Alco Industries -1991 (55) E.L.T. 184 (Madras), the matter before the High Court of Judicature at Madras related to the Wet Grinder in which the grinder as such had no electrical connection for operation by receiving electrical energy. The electrical motor was placed alongwith and provided with pulleys for rotating the grinders by means of V Belts. The High Court considered that "by mere process of assembling the electric motor in the already existing grinder no commercially new product as such emerged by any manufacturing process." To our mind, there is no relevancy of these decisions to the specific facts before us in these proceedings.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

4. Whether Order Is To Be Circulated To ... vs Unknown on 24 August, 2009

The statement of facts contained in the draft audit para is not admitted. The main point is as to which type of motors will be treated as inbuilt motors. The issue was discussed in the Commissioners conference held at Bangalore in June 2000. (Copy enclosed). It was concluded that the sewing machines having motors connected externally by means of a belt and not directly, are of the type other than those with built-in motors and are rightly eligible for the benefit of exemption notification. As regards the case law, {(1999) (106) ELT 165}, it is stated that the issue in that case was whether the clutch motors were parts of sewing machines of otherwise. An integral part of a machine may not necessarily be inbuilt it could be other than inbuilt also. The motors in this case were not inbuilt in the machines but located outside and were connected to the sewing machine externally with the help of a pulley and belt system. Thus, the notification benefit has been correctly extended in this case. Further, the similar issue was discussed in the Chief Commissioners Conference and the points raised, the discussion and the conclusion portion in the conference are reproduced below.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1