Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (1.46 seconds)
Documents citing Hindustan Sanitaryware And Industries ... vs Collector Of Customs on 2 November, 1999

Graphic Charts Ltd. vs Cce on 18 April, 2000

5.2. The decision of the Tribunal in the case of Lakshmi Cements v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi reported in 1996 (14) RLT 36 also does not help the appellants. In that case the dispute was only regarding the sub-heading under Chapter 49 viz. sub-Heading 4901.9Q or 4911.91 and the Tribunal held that the goods in dispute viz. folders containing technical designs, drawings and specifications fell for classification under Customs Tariff Heading 4901.90 and not under 4911.91 as claimed by the Department. There was no dispute before the Tribunal as to whether the goods were products of the printing industry or paper industry and, therefore, the Tribunal had no occasion to go into this question.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Kinetic Engineering Limited And Anr. vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 25 June, 2004

15. With a view to substantiate his submission, that word 'component' should be read in place of 'spares' or in addition to 'spares' in Entry 75(a), Shri Shah, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court , in the case of Hindustan Sanitaryware and Industries Ltd. and Lakshmi Cement v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta. In the said case, a notification was issued under the Customs Act, 1962, exempting refractory bricks of special shape or quality for use as component part of Industrial furnaces, partly or wholly from customs duty. The claim of the assessee for exemption was rejected by CEGAT on the ground that the benefit of the said notifications was available to refractory bricks of special shape or quality imported for use as 'component parts' of industrial furnace and not to those imported for use as 'spare parts' of industrial furnace. Against the order of CEGAT, Appeal was carried to the Apex Court.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - A P Deshpande - Full Document

Commissioner Of Customs (General), N. ... vs M/S. Gujarat Perstorp Electronics Ltd on 5 August, 2005

It noted that the Larger Bench was faced with the issue as to whether the law laid down by a two- member Bench in Tractors & Farm Equipment Ltd. vs. Collector of Customs, (1993) 68 ELT 234 was correct or decisions of Coordinate Benches in Mitutronics vs. Collector of Customs, (1990) 46 ELT 500, Roto Inks (P) Ltd. vs. Collector of Customs, (1990) 47 ELT 398, Tata Consultancy Service vs. Collector of Customs, (1991) 53 ELT 454, Collector of Customs, Madras vs. Tata Elxsi India Ltd., (1995) 78 ELT 370, Laakshmi Cement vs. Collector of Customs, New Delhi, (1996) 84 ELT 271, were correct. CEGAT proceeded to state that after a survey on the entire case law, the Larger Bench in Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. took the view that the law laid down by two-member Bench in Tractors & Farm Equipment Ltd. did not lay down correct law and accordingly overruled it. The decisions in other cases were correct and the said view was affirmed. In those decisions, it was held that printed materials could be said to be "Books" covered under Chapter Heading 4901 and were entitled to full exemption and consequently no duty was leviable on the goods imported. CEGAT noted that the decision of the Larger Bench was binding on it. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Company as well as by the Chairman- cum-Managing Director and the Director were allowed by setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner imposing duty and penalty. Resultantly, two appeals filed by the Department for enhancement of penalty on Chairman-cum-Managing Director and Director were dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 5 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise, Delhi vs M/S Allied Air-Conditioning ... on 13 September, 2006

By way of example, a spare part is a replacement part to replace a damaged or worn-out component but it is, nevertheless, a component part. In such cases, "Component" was the genus and 'spare' was a species thereof; it was a component which was used for replacement. (See Hindustan Sanitaryware & Industries Ltd. & Lakshmi Cement v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta (2000) 10 SCC 224).
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 24 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Jewels Magnum, Coimbatore vs Assessee on 19 February, 2016

4. The Ld. representative further submitted that there is no reference about any demarcation or classification under Special Economic Zone Rules, 2006. Even the Customs Tariff Act makes no classification as "pendant" and "medallion". The functional utility of the medallion and pendant is one and the same. According to the Ld. representative, the predominant and primary use of commodity must be taken into account apart from understanding it in common parlance. According to the Ld. representative, the 7 I.T.A. Nos.2311 & 2312/Mds/15 Assessing Officer failed to consider the functional utility of the medallion. Placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Hindustan Sanitaryware & Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs (1999) 114 ELT 778, the Ld. representative submitted that component is a genus, however, the spare is a species.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation vs Kinetic Engineering Ltd. . on 27 April, 2015

We have already extracted Entry No. 75(A) as well as Entry No. 75(B). It is the submission of Mr.K.V.Vishwanathan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, that the High Court was wrong in concluding that the import of components meant for the purpose of Moped fall within the expression “all kinds of vehicles and their components and spares”. His submission was that Entry No. 75(B) refers to non-motorised vehicles which would be cleared from the vehicles mentioned therein namely Bicycle, Perambulators, carriages, whereas Mopeds are motorised vehicles. He referred to 'Hindustan Sanitaryware & Industries Ltd. & Lakshmi Cement v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta' [2000 (10) SCC 224]. To this extent, the contention of Mr.Vishawanathan appears to be correct. C.A.NO.4663/ 2004 4 However, in order to succeed in this appeal and to claim the duty at the rate of 4 per cent, it is incumbent upon the appellant to establish that the components imported by the respondent are covered by Entry No. 75(A). We find that the type of vehicles mentioned in Entry No. 75(A) are motor cars and motor cycles. It also includes chassis and lorries and spares thereof. Even if we proceed on the presumption that Mopeds are motor cycles, we find that in the present case the respondent was bringing into the Ahmednagar Municipality the components of all the Mopeds which according to the respondent were used for manufacturing of the Mopeds and possibly some of these components were sold as spares as well. The case made out by the respondent in the High Court was that since these were components which were imported, they cannot be treated as spares which is the item mentioned in Entry No. 75(A) to attract 4 per cent duty.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next