Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.33 seconds)
Documents citing Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 22 May, 1989

Sree Annapoorna Hospitality Services ... vs Coimbatore on 16 April, 2025

and the said notification No.1/2006-ST does not prohibit the availment of the said notification if the service provider limits such availment to cases other than when notification No.1/2006 has been availed. We have also not been shown any provision in law that mandates that if a specific notification is issued, then it would be to the exclusion of the assessee availing the benefit of any other notification that is also available to the assessee. If the notification itself does not stipulate an explicit bar stating that the benefit under the notification is available only if it is availed to the exclusion of availing benefit under any other notification, we would be reluctant to read in any such implied prohibition, so as to deny the appellant herein the benefit of the notification 12/2003-ST claimed. It is also seen that this Tribunal has in a catena of decisions taken a view that there is no bar in availing benefit under more than one notification unless it is barred categorically. Decisions in CCE Hyderabad v Premier Mushroom Farms, 2005 (190) ELT 511 (Tri-Bang), Hindustan Lever Ltd v Collector of C.Ex, 1989 (40) ELT 288 (Tri), Collector of 11 Customs, Madras v Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd, Madras, 1987(31) ELT 534 (Tri), refer in this regard.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Switzer Instruments Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs on 26 April, 1999

1. This appeal arises from the Order-in-Appeal dated 10-1-1992 passed by Collector (Appeals), Chennai, holding that Pressure Transducers (Censors) are classifiable under Heading 9026.90 of the Customs tariff without the benefit of Notification No. 91/89 Customs and the prayer for classification under Heading 8541.50 of the said notification was rejected. The issue in the present case, is covered by the judgment rendered in the case of Polylefine Industries v. C.C.E. as reported in 1983 (12) E.L.T. 357 and also in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. C.C. as reported in 1997 (94) E.L.T. 687. In both these judgments the Tribunal has confirmed the view taken by the Collector (Appeals).
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1