Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.02 seconds)
Documents citing Hico Products Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise on 28 November, 1989

Tata Unisys Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 30 June, 1994

In the case of Hico Products Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1994 (71) E.L.T. 339 (SC), the Hon. Supreme Court have held that exemption by means of notification does not take away the levy or have the effect of erasing levy of duty (para 3). In para 15 of their judgment it has been held that: "those goods are exempt from payment of excise duty because of the language of the notification binding it to a particular item and not universally."
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 36 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Cheminova India Ltd. vs Sales Tax Officer on 9 November, 2001

14. We may also note the principle laid down by the apex Court in Hico Products Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (1994) 71 ELT 339. In that case, the apex Court has held that the exemption from duty by means of a statutory notification does not take away the levy or have the effect of erasing levy of duty ; the object of the exemption notification is to forgo due duty and to confer certain benefits upon the manufacturer or the buyer or the consumer through the manufacturer, as the case may be. Of course, that was a decision under the Central Excise Act and the Rules framed thereunder, but, in our opinion, the principle laid down therein is of general application to exemptions under all taxing enactments.
Gujarat High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 1 - M S Shah - Full Document

Metroark Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 15 January, 2004

5. The question therefore is whether it can be considered to be a Medicament. The Tribunal, without the aid of the Hico Products case (supra), came to the conclusion that the product is a Silicone in primary form. In doing so, it has recorded that "it is not denied that Dimethicone BPC is otherwise a Silicone in primary form". It was submitted that this observation was not correct. It was submitted that it was always disputed that the product was a "Silicone in primary form". However, we find that there is no ground in the Memo of Appeal that this finding of the Tribunal has been wrongly recorded. Even otherwise, it is a settled law that if a Court or Tribunal records something then that has to be taken as correct unless the party gets the same clarified from that Court or Tribunal itself. As the Appellants have not made any effort to get this position clarified from the Tribunal nor taken any ground in the Memo of Appeal it is not possible to accept this submission.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 43 - Full Document

Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner Of Sales Tax on 14 June, 2024

"14. We may also note the principle laid down by the apex Court in Hico Products Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (1994) 71 ELT 339. In that case, the apex Court has held that the exemption from duty by means of a statutory notification does not take away the levy or have the effect of erasing levy of duty ; the object of the exemption notification is to forgo due duty and to Page 28 of 83 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 28 21:34:19 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7738/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024 undefined confer certain benefits upon the manufacturer or the buyer or the consumer through the manufacturer, as the case may be. Of course, that was a decision under the Central Excise Act and the Rules framed thereunder, but, in our opinion, the principle laid down therein is of general application to exemptions under all taxing enactments."
Gujarat High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - B D Karia - Full Document

Idea Cellular Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax Mumbai-I on 26 November, 2018

3. Furthermore, he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in Hico Products Ltd, Bombay v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay [1983 (14) ELT 2483 (CEGAT)] and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Carbide India Ltd v. State of Andhra Pradesh [267 JT 1995 (3) 218] to seek relief by invoking the doctrine of dominant use. He also contends that, for most of the period covered by the demand, tax liability was to be discharged on actual receipts and, therefore, imposition of tax on a free service rendered to its employees was not legal and that recourse to rule 3(a) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 could be had only when the value was not determinable in monetary terms which would not apply to the appellant whose bills on the employees are written off to the extent of eligibility. In addition, he pleads that revenue neutrality and absence of any evidence of suppression or misrepresentation would immunize them from recovery of tax liability beyond the normal period.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1