Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (1.43 seconds)
Documents citing Cce vs Parle Products (P) Ltd. on 26 March, 1998

Madura Coats Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 29 May, 2003

11. Similar view was expressed by the Apex Court in the case of CCE v. Park Exports (P) Ltd., 1988 (38) E.L.T. 741 (S.C.); Johnson & Johnson Ltd. v. CCE, 1997 (92) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.). A similar view has been expressed by the Tribunal in the case of Johnson & Johnson Ltd., 1994 (71) E.L.T. 438 (T); FACT Ltd. 2001 (133) E.L.T. 175 (T) and Super Cassettes Industries, 1992 (58) E.L.T. 105 (T). In all the citations referred to by the representative of the appellants, we notice that there was inherent defect in the original notification and an ambiguity existed which required to be clarified. In the present case, admittedly, the Notification No. 82/92-C.E. did not have any ambiguity and it was crystal clear one. The intention of the Govt. was not to grant the benefit of CVD & SAD when Notification No. 82/92-CE. was introduced. The benefit of these two elements were considered to be extended by a subsequent notification for specific reasons. Consciously, the benefit was extended at a later point of time by Notification No. 28/2001. A substantive right was created subsequently and it can not be said to be clarificatory in nature to have a retrospective effect. In that view of the matter, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Commissioner on the basis of case-law is correct one which is required to be confirmed. We confirm the same by dismissing this appeal.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Excise Commissioner And Anr. vs Mysore Sales International Ltd. And ... on 13 March, 2006

Shri Narasimhamurthy again relied on certain observations in CCE v. Parle Exports (P) Ltd. in support of strict construction of a provision concerning exemptions. There is support of judicial opinion to the view that exemptions from taxation have a tendency to increase the burden on the other un-exempted class of taxpayers and should be construed against the subject in case of ambiguity. It is an equally well known principle that a person who claims an exemption has to establish his case. Indeed, in the very case of Parle Exports (P) Ltd. relied upon by Shn Narasimhamurthy, it was observed:
Karnataka High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - V G Gowda - Full Document

Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 16 April, 2007

4. Referring to the Commissioner's finding, that the advertisement undertaken are in respect of final products manufactured by the appellants, it was submitted that the Commissioner has held that the test to determine as to whether an input is used in or in relation to manufacture of final product can be gauged by the fact of inclusion of or non inclusion of value of the input in the value of the final product. Since in their case, the advertisement expenses were included in the value of concentrates, the same has to be considered as input services. The Apex Court's decision in the case of CCE, Mumbai v. Parle International Limited cited supra is distinguishable as in that case the advertisement expenses were not incurred by the manufacturing unit but by third party and was therefore held not liable to be included in the assessable value. In the present case, the advertisements are undertaken by the appellant himself for promoting the sale of his concentrates, and therefore credit on the same cannot be denied.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

M/S. Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs C.C.E., Calcutta-I on 11 January, 2001

In this connection, he relies upon the decision/judgments in the case of the Central India Spinning and Weaving Manufacturing Co. Ltd. And the Express Mills, Nagpur vs. Municipal Committee, Wardha: AIR 1958 SC 341; C.C.E. Vs. Parle Exports (P) Ltd.: 1988 (38) ELT 741 (SC); and Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. 1989 (44) ELT 794 (SC); C.C., Bombay vs. United Electrical Industries Ltd.: 1999 (108) ELT 609 (SC); Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. V. Deputy Commissioner 1991 (55) ELT 437 (SC); Punjab Rubber & Allied Industries vs. UOI: 1983 (12) ELT 54 (P & H); P.K. Nimel vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise: 1988 (36) ELT 482 (Kerala); Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India: 1992 (59) ELT 207; Akbar Badruddin Jiwani vs. C.C.: 1990 (48) ELT 441 (CEGAT); TTK Pharma Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.: 1993 (63) ELT 446 (CEGAT); and C.C.E., Calcutta-I & II vs. Black Diamond Beverages Ltd.: 1998 (103) ELT 655 (CEGAT).
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta Cites 35 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Mahila Griha Udyog Lijjat Papad vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 23 October, 2001

"Shri Narasimhamurthy again relied on certain observations in CCE v. Parle Exports (P) Ltd. (1988 (38) ELT 741 (SC) = 1989 (1) SCC 345, in support of strict construction of a provision concerning exemptions. There is support of judicial opinion to the view that exemptions from taxation have a tendency to increase the burden on the other unexempted class of tax payers and should be construed against the subject in case of ambiguity. It is an equally well known principle that a person who claims an exemption has to establish his case. Indeed, in the very case of Parle Exports (P) Ltd. relied upon by Shri Narasimhamurthy, it was observed:
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 36 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

G.S. Oils Ltd. vs General Manager, District Industries ... on 10 August, 2006

In dealing with the submission the Tribunal noticed the decision of this Court in CCE v. Parle Exports (P) Ltd. , wherein this Court held that exemption should be strictly construed although the exemption clause in the notification may be construed liberally. In other words, eligibility criteria should be construed strictly but a liberal approach may be adopted in construing other conditions.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Excise Commissioner & Anr. vs Mysore Sales International Ltd. & Ors. on 13 March, 2006

"Shri Narasimhamurthy again relied on certain observations in CCE v. Parle Exports (P) Ltd. in support of strict construction of a provision concerning exemptions. There is support of judicial opinion to the view that exemptions from taxation have a tendency to increase the burden on the other un-exempted class of taxpayers and should be construed against the subject in case of ambiguity. It is an equally well known principle that a person who claims an exemption has to establish his case. Indeed, in the very case of Parle Exports (P) Ltd. relied upon by Shri Narasimhamurthy, it was observed :
Karnataka High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - V G Gowda - Full Document

Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd. vs Dy. Cit (Tds)-I on 13 March, 2006

"Shri Narasimhamurty again relied on certain observations in CCE v. Parle Exports (P) Ltd. in support of strict construction of a provision concerning exemptions. There is support of judicial opinion to the view that exemptions from taxation have a tendency to increase the burden on the other unexempted class of taxpayers and should be construed against the subject in case of ambiguity. It is an equally well-known principle that a person who claims an exemption has to establish his case. Indeed, in the very case of Parle Exports (P.) Ltd relied upon by Shri Narasimhamurty, it was observed:
Karnataka High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next