Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 47 (1.16 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Oblum Electrical Industries Pvt. ... vs Collector Of Customs Bombay on 2 September, 1997

One Stop Airline Mro Support Private ... vs Commissioner Of Customs on 21 January, 2008

(c) The above interpretation placed by us while rejecting the Revenue's contention, will be consistent with the object and purpose of the notification which it is not impermissible to take into account (vide Oblum Electrical Industries v. Collector of Customs 1988 (38) E.L.T. 7). The notification seems to be a step in the direction of providing appropriate relief for the imports connected with the maintenance needs of the air service sector in India which has recorded a phenomenal growth in the recent times.
Authority Tribunal Cites 23 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Brakes India Ltd. vs Cc on 10 July, 1998

13. The Tribunal's order in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay (final order No. 284/95-C dated 29.9.1995) and majority opinion in the case of ITC Ltd. v. CCE, Bombay have naturally followed the Pankaj Jain case. This however, does not affect the above situation because Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Haryana Plywood Industries had not been delivered by then.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Shri Debanjan Das Gupta, Kolkata vs Acit(It), Circle-1(1), Kolkata, ... on 15 November, 2019

Moreover, it has to be kept in mind that an Explanation to substantive section should be read as to harmonize with and clear up any ambiguity in the main section and should not be so construed as to widen the ambit of the section as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bihta Cooperative Development Cane Marketing Union Ltd. Vs. Bank of Bihar, AIR 1967 SC 389 and M/s. Oblum Electrical Industries Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay - AIR 1997 SC 3467 at page 3471 and also see Justice G. P. Singh, Principal of Statutory Interpretation 234 Lexus 2016. It has to be kept in mind that while the Commissioner is exercising his revisional jurisdiction over the assessment order, he has to exercise his power in an objective manner and not arbitrarily or subjectively since he is discharging quasi-judicial powers vested in him while doing so. Thus according to us, Explanation (2) inserted by the Parliament u/s. 263 cannot override the main section i.e. sec. 263(1) of the Act. The Ld. CIT can exercise his revisional jurisdiction in the event the assessment order is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as discussed above and not otherwise.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 41 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Samir Kumar Nayak , Balasore vs Cit(It&Tp;), Kolkata on 29 November, 2019

Moreover, it has to be kept in mind that an Explanation to substantive section should be read as to harmonize with and clear up any ambiguity in the main section and should not be so construed as to widen the ambit of the section as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bihta 23 ITA Nos.1303,1307,1309,1310,1312,1313&1316/Kol/2019, AYs- 2014-15 Cooperative Development Cane Marketing Union Ltd. Vs. Bank of Bihar, AIR 1967 SC 389 and M/s. Oblum Electrical Industries Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay - AIR 1997 SC 3467 at page 3471 and also see Justice G. P. Singh, Principal of Statutory Interpretation 234 Lexus 2016. It has to be kept in mind that while the Commissioner is exercising his revisional jurisdiction over the assessment order, he has to exercise his power in an objective manner and not arbitrarily or subjectively since he is discharging quasi-judicial powers vested in him while doing so. Thus according to us, Explanation (2) inserted by the Parliament u/s. 263 cannot override the main section i.e. sec. 263(1) of the Act. The Ld. CIT can exercise his revisional jurisdiction in the event the assessment order is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as discussed above and not otherwise.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Eveready Industries India Ltd., ... vs Pr.Cit-4, Kolkata on 13 December, 2019

It is so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bihta Cooperative Development Cane Marketing Union Ltd. Vs. Bank of Bihar, AIR 1967 SC 389 and M/s. Oblum Electrical Industries Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay - AIR 1997 SC 3467 at page 3471 and also see Justice G. P. Singh, Principal of Statutory Interpretation 234 Lexus 2016. It has to be kept in mind that while the Commissioner is exercising his revisional jurisdiction over the assessment order, he has to exercise his power in an objective manner and not arbitrarily or subjectively since he is discharging quasi- judicial powers vested in him while doing so. Thus according to us, Explanation (2) inserted by the Parliament u/s. 263 cannot override the main section i.e. sec. 263(1) of the Act. The Ld. CIT can exercise his revisional jurisdiction in the event the assessment order is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as discussed above and not otherwise.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 57 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Rungta Mines Ltd., Kolkata vs Principal Cit - 1, Kolkata , Kolkata on 6 January, 2021

It is so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bihta Cooperative Development Cane Marketing Union Ltd. Vs. Bank of Bihar, AIR 1967 SC 389 and M/s. Oblum Electrical Industries Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay - AIR 1997 SC 3467 at page 3471 and also see Justice G. P. Singh, Principal of Statutory Interpretation 234 Lexus 2016. It has to be kept in mind that while the Commissioner is exercising his revisional jurisdiction over the assessment order, he has to exercise his power in an objective manner and not arbitrarily or subjectively since he is discharging quasi-judicial powers vested in him while doing so. Thus according to us, Explanation (2) inserted by the Parliament u/s. 263 cannot override the main section i.e. sec. 263(1) of the Act. The Ld. CIT can exercise his revisional jurisdiction in the event the assessment order is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as discussed above and not otherwise.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 27 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M/S. Origami Cellulo Private Limited, ... vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - ... on 15 September, 2021

It is so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bihta Cooperative Development Cane Marketing Union Ltd. Vs. Bank of Bihar, AIR 1967 SC 389 and M/s. Oblum Electrical Industries Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay - AIR 1997 SC 3467 at page 3471 and also see Justice G. P. Singh, Principal of Statutory Interpretation 234 Lexus 2016. It has to be kept in mind that while the Commissioner is exercising his revisional jurisdiction over the assessment order, he has to exercise his power in an objective manner and not arbitrarily or subjectively since he is discharging quasijudicial powers vested in him while doing so. Thus according to us, Explanation (2) inserted by the Parliament u/s. 263 cannot override the main section i.e. sec. 263(1) of the Act. The Ld. CIT can exercise his revisional jurisdiction in the event the assessment order is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as discussed above and not otherwise.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Heinz India Limited vs The State Of Kerala on 4 May, 2023

“[..] The Explanation to Section 4(4)(d)(i) provides an exclusive definition of the term "packing" and it includes not only outer packing but also what may be called inner packing. Ordinarily bobbin, pirl, spool, reel and warp beam on which yarn is wound would not be regarded as packing of such yarn, but they are brought within the definition of "packing" by the Explanation. The Explanation thus extends the meaning of the word "packing" to cover items which would not ordinarily be regarded as forming part of packing. The Explanation then proceeds to say that "packing" means wrapper, container or any other thing in which the excisable goods are wrapped or contained. It is apparent from the wide language of the Explanation that every kind of container in which it can be said that the excisable goods are contained would be "packing" within the meaning of the Explanation and this would necessarily include a fortiori corrugated fibre board containers in which the cigarettes are 30 1997 Supp (3) SCR 68 31 1985 Supp (3) SCR 123 34 contained. When Bombay Tyre International case was argued before us, it was at one stage sought to be contended, though rather faintly, that it is only the immediate packing in which the excisable goods are contained, that is primary packing alone, which would be liable to be regarded as "packing" within the meaning of the Explanation. But this argument was given up when it was pointed out that even secondary packing would be within the terms of the Explanation, because such secondary packing would also constitute a wrapper or a container in which the excisable goods are wrapped or contained. [..]”
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - S R Bhat - Full Document

M/S. Kitply Industries Ltd. vs Cc, New Kandla on 25 May, 2001

In order to ensure that the exemption is availed only by deserving people, conditions have been laid down in clauses (a) to (g), which must be fulfilled for availing the exemption. One such condition, as laid down in clause (a), is that the material imported must be covered by a Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate issued by the licensing authority. Under Clause (c) it is required that the goods corresponding to the resultant product and the mandatory spares should be exported within the tim specified in the DEEC or such extended period as may be granted by the licensing authority. The wordings in the notification have to be construed keeping in view the said object and purpose of the exemption. In the notification two different expressions have been used namely, materials required to be imported for the purpose of manufacture of products' and 'replenishment of materials used in the manufacture of resultant products' which indicates that the two expressions have not been used in the same sense. The expression 'materials required to be imported for the purpose of manufacture of products' cannot be construed as referring only to materials which are used in the manufacture of the products. The said exemption must be given its natural meaning to include materials that are required in order to manufacture the resultant products. On that view, the exemption cannot be confined to materials which are actually used in the manufacture of the resultant product but would also include materials which though not used in the manufacture of the resultant product but would also include materials which though not used in the manufacture of the resultant product are required in order to manufacture the resultant product. Crystar beams imported by the appellant are materials, which though not used in the manufacture of H.T. Porcelain insulators required for Lightening Arrestors, are materials which are required for producing the insulators in the kilns.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta Cites 6 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

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

It is emphasised here that such part deals with administrative and political set up and not for purpose of interpreting the Notification issued under Central Excise Act. That take up to another area which has been strongly argued for the department. he cited several judgments viz. UOI v. Haim Aghajan [Air 1968 Bom 366; CCE v. Neoli Sugar Factory [1993 (65) E.L.T. 145 S.C; State of U.P. v. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti [1995 (Supp(2) SCC 305]; Ublum Electrical v. CC, Bombay [1997 (94) E.L.T. 449 (S.C.) and other series of cases. We are of the view that those cases relied upon by the Ld. Counsel are not at all relevant for the purpose of consideration of the question before us. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that in any case even the Board's circular contained in Trade Notice No. 2/96 dated 3-1-96 reflected in 1996 (81) ELT T-47, in paragraph 2, the words start with the term 'doubts have been raised' and it ends with in paragraph 3 with 'specified production units in any area comprised in any town, the population of which does not exceed ten thousand'. In the impugned order, the Commissioner refers to in paragraph 10, 11 and 12 of the order in respect of this question which is reproduced as below:
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 36 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next