Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.45 seconds)
Documents citing Collector Of Customs vs O.E.N. India Ltd. on 5 October, 1987

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

12. We find that the appellants contention that the question whether the used and unserviceable Railway materials used as inputs could be deemed as angles, shapes and sections has to be determined with reference to Note l(n) of Chapter 72 of the Tariff Schedule has no force at all. It has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs v. O.E.N. India Ltd., reported in 1989 (42) E.L.T. 235 that Interpretative Rules, Section Notes etc. governing the tariff are not relevant for the purpose of interpreting notifications.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 12 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Twenty First Century Printers vs Collector Of Customs on 29 July, 1994

Shri Sharma relied on the order passed by the Collector as well as the order passed by Shri S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice-President He referred to Note 7 of Chapter 84 and again referred to the principal purpose and the principal purpose is manufacture of flattened cartons and the purpose is not defined anywhere. He further argued that the benefit of Notification No. 114/80-Cus. is not available and referred to Serial No. 1 of the notification. During his arguments he cited a decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs v. O.E.N. India Ltd. reported in 1989 (42) E.L.T. 235 (Tribunal). He argued that benefit of Notification No. 114/80-Cus. is not available to the appellants as it is a multi-function machine. He pleaded that the normal rate of duty is 85% and whereas after extending the benefit of the notification it is 35% and this benefit is not extendable to the appellant and the import is not covered under OGL. He pleaded for agreeing with the order passed by the Vice-president.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 76 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Lucas Tvs vs Collector Of Customs on 29 October, 1991

Shri Arora also referred to another decision in the case of Collector of Customs v. O.E.N. India Ltd. reported in 1989 (42) ELT 235 (Tribunal) where it was held that Interpretative Rules or Section Notes etc., governing Customs/Excise Tariff inapplicable for interpreting a notification. Lastly, Shri Arora pleaded that while interpreting a notification there is no scope for any intendment.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Collector Of Central Excise vs Hindustan Reprographics Ltd. on 29 March, 1993

In the case of Collector of Customs v. O.E.N. India Ltd. and Guest Keen Williams Limited v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta : it was ruled by this Tribunal that while interpreting an exemption notification interpretative Rules, Section or Chapter Notes as contained in the Tariff are inapplicable. Even HSN Explanatory Notes are not binding while interpreting exemption Notification. The definition of "Reproducer' given in McGraw Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms is also of no help, in view of the catalogue referred to above which itself describes the function of the MFRP in details. That apart, from the catalogue, it is clear that MFRP in addition to its function as reader printer can also be made use of indirectly for the purpose of photocopying. First an image or a print is microfilmed with the help of an independent device such as a camera and then this microfilmed print or image is reproduced as a print or an image with the help of MFRP. Thus, it can unhesitatingly be said that though the product MFRP does not directly perform the function of photocopying and accordingly cannot be said to fall under Serial No. 28 of the Schedule to the Notification, yet it is covered within the ambit of Explanation given at the bottom of the Notification.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Winter Misra Diamond Tools Ltd. vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 27 February, 1996

In support of his contention, he would like to cite the cases of Collector of Customs v. O.E.N. India Ltd. reported in 1989 (42) E.L.T. 235 (Tribunal), Guest Keen Williams Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta reported in 1987 (29) E.L.T. 68 (Tribunal) and Johnson and Johnson Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay reported in 1987 (29) E.L.T. 428 (Tribunal) in which the Tribunal had held that the Rules of Interpretation and the Section Notes cannot be applied for interpretating a notification.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1