Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.41 seconds)
Documents citing Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Two Ors. on 26 April, 1974

Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 16 July, 1984

24. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government that the decision in Kirloskar's case should not be a guideline in adjudicating the case on hand for the reason that that case was concerned with the goods wholly exempted, has no substance inasmuch as on principle it makes no difference whether the matter pertain to partial or total exemption.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 14 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Castrol Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 31 December, 1984

"Likewise the contention in regard to the dismissal of the SCLP on merits by the Supreme Court passed on September 1, 1977 against the aforesaid judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kirloskar's case, it should not be taken to be really a decision on merits, also merits no consideration, as it is fairly settled by now that when the Court records its order as dismissal on merits, it must be taken to have been a decision on merits."
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 16 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Collector Of Central Excise vs Parmali Wallace Ltd. on 29 January, 1985

All that we need say here is that Kirloskar Brothers' case is distinguishable on facts and the decision in that case must be confined to its own facts. In the case before us, the goods were exigible to excise duty both on the date of manufacture and on the date of removal. They were never wholly exempt. The exemptions were only partial in that the rate of duty as fixed by Tariff Item No. 18 of the First Schedule was reduced from time to time by notifications issued under Rule 8. As the goods were never wholly exempt, Kirloskar Brothers' case has no application here."
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 25 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

British India Corporation Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 2 December, 1985

Reliance of the appellants on Kirloskar case judgment is, therefore, misplaced. Secondly, Rule 9A specifically provides that the rate of duty applicable to the goods shall be the rate in force on the date of their removal. If the appellants' proposition were to be accepted and the old rate as on the date of manufacture applied in preference to the new rate as on the date of removal, Rule 9A would be rendered nugatory which cannot be accepted. Thirdly, in the case before us, there really was no difference in the rates of duty on wool tops as on the two dates of manufacture and removal. The rate was the same. What really happened was that by blending with other fibres, wool tops gained weight and their quantity became more. The appellant's argument amounts to saying that though 15 kgs. of blended wool tops are actually removal for spinning into yarn, duty should be charged only on 10 kgs. which was their weight before blending. We find no authority for such a proposition.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1