Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.38 seconds)
Documents citing I.B.M. World Trade Corporation vs Union Of India on 1 January, 1800

Collector Of Central Excise vs Karna Industries on 7 January, 1992

He argued that the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of IBM World Trade Corporation v. Union of India reported in 1980 ELT 274 (Bom) was on different basis. Shri Ravinder Narain argued that the decision of IBM World Trade Corporation is dated 13.7.79 and the decision in the case of Century Spinning and Manufacturing Company reported in 1981 ELT 676 (Bom) is dated 30.6.79. He argued that Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. decision is correct in law. He also referred to para 7 of the Shriram Refrigeration which appears at page 9 of the order. Shri Ravinder Narain argued at length on manufacture and what amounts to manufacture has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in the following decisions:-
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 36 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Ghanshyam Chejra vs Collector Of Customs on 16 December, 1988

"Once a finding is given by a Superior authority on contentions raised before it, it is binding upon the subordinate authorities in subsequent proceedings, unless some other material is brought to their notice, which compels them to take a contrary view. The Court was concerned with the levy of countervailing duty in that case. The same principle would apply to the levy of excise also. In the present case, no other material was before the subordinate authorities at the time when the show cause notices were issued, which would warrant a different view being taken by the subordinate authority for either the previous or subsequent years or the same years."
Calcutta High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Trident Television Private Limited vs Collector Of Customs on 16 December, 1988

" Once a finding is given by a superior authority on contentions raised before it, it is binding upon the subordinate authorities in subsequent proceedings, unless some other material is brought to their notice, which compels them to take a contrary view. The court was concerned with the levy of countervailing duty in that case. The same principle would apply to the levy of excise also. In the present case no other material was before the subordinate authorities at the time when the show cause notices were issued, which would warrant a different view being taken by the subordinate authority for either the previous or subsequent years or the same years."
Calcutta High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Rotoflex Industries vs Collector Of Customs on 15 April, 1993

"Once a finding is given by a superior authority on contentions raised before it, it is binding upon the subordinate authorities in subsequent proceedings, unless some other material is brought to their notice, which compels them to take a contrary view. The Court was concerned With the levy of countervailing duty in that case. The same principle would apply to the levy of excise also. In the present case, no other material was before the subordinate authorities at the time when the show cause notices were issued, which would warrant a different view being taken by the subordinate authority for either the previous or subsequent years or the same years."
Calcutta High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tata Sons Limited vs Union Of India And Others on 19 September, 1981

18. The learned counsel also placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of I.B.M. World Trade Corporation v. Union of India reported in 1980, Excise Law Times 274 and submitted that the Customs Department claimed that the Data Processing Machines are "machines" and not "appliances". The question about levy of countervailing duty for import of Data Processing Machine came up for consideration and Shri Talyarkhan claims that looking to the stand taken by the Department in that case, it is obvious that the Department treated the computers as machines. It is not possible to jump to that conclusion only because of the stand taken by the Department in a particular case.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Co. Pvt. ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 30 August, 1984

In the case of I.B.M. World Trade Corporation v. Union of India reported in 1980 E.L.T. 274 (Bom.) this High Court has also held that once a finding is given by a superior authority on contentions raised before it, it is binding upon the subordinate authorities in subsequent proceedings, unless some other material is brought to their notice, which compels them to take a contrary view. The court was concerned with the levy of countervailing duty in that case. The same principle would apply to the levy of excise also. In the present case no other material was before the subordinate authorities at the time when the show cause notices were issued, which would warrent a different view being taken by the subordinate authority for either the previous or subsequent years or the same years.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - S V Manohar - Full Document
1