Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 672 (1.19 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India & Ors vs Godfrey Philips India Ltd. Etc. Etc on 30 September, 1985

Lacto Cosmetics (Vapi) (P.) Ltd. vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 12 December, 1995

14. We have considered the submissions. From the impugned order we find that the Collector of Central Excise has tacitly negatived the contention of the appellants to the effect that in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. 1985 (22) E.L.T. 306 (SC) the cost of the special packing was not includible in the assessable value, and in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Duphar Interfran Ltd., supra, the extra charges in respect of packing and distribution costs, as desired by the wholesale dealers, was also not includible in the assessable value and, therefore, under this bona fide belief they did not declare the same in the Classification Lists, on the ground that intention to evade payment of duty is immaterial in view of the judgment rendered by this Tribunal in the case of Cosmic Dye Chem v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, 1984 (18) E.L.T. 6.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Hindustan Polymers vs Collector Of Central Excise on 23 August, 1990

The ratio of the decision in Godfrey Phillips' case (supra) is in consonance with the decision of Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International (supra), and further in consonance with the true basis of excise as explained in several decisions mentioned before. In the premises, on the facts of this case, it is clear that the goods were not sold in drums generally in the course of the wholesale trade. There was evidence that 90% of the goods were delivered at the time of removal without being put in drums. There was no evidence that there was any necessity of packing or putting these in drums prior to their sale. It was not necessary that the articles were to be placed in drums for these to be able to generally to enter the stream of wholesale trade or to be marketable. On the other hand, there was evidence that in the wholesale trade, these goods were delivered directly in tankers and deliverable as such. But as a matter of fact' delivery in drums was only to facilitate their transport in small quantities. The manufacture of the goods was complete before these were placed in drums. The completely manufactured product was stored in tanks. From these tanks the goods were removed directly and placed in vehicles for their movement-for 90% of the sales, the vehicle of removals was tankers and 10% of the sales, the vehicle of removals was drums. In the permises, the value of the drums with regard to the fusel oil/Styrene monomer irrespective of whether these were supplied by the assessee or not are not includible in the assessable value of the Styrene Monomer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Sri Chakra Tyres Limited vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Superintendent ... on 3 March, 1986

In view of the principle settled down by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. , it is too difficult to accept the respondents' contention put in a very general way that in tax matters, there can be no estoppel-be it promissory estoppel and that repository of power in the Government implies that there can be no promissory estoppel.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Government Of A.P. Rep., By Its ... vs A. Rajaiah And Ors. on 16 October, 2001

"....It is well settled that the doctrine of promissory estoppel represents a principle evolved by equity to avoid injustice and, though commonly named promissory estoppel, it is neither in the realm of contract nor in the realm of estoppel. The basis of this doctrine is the inter-position of equity which has always, proved to its form, stepped in to mitigate the rigour of strict law. It is equally true that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is not limited in its application only to defence but it can also found a cause of action. This doctrine is applicable against the Government in exercise of its governmental public or executive functions and the doctrine of executive necessity or freedom of future executive action, cannot be invoked to defeat the applicability of this doctrine. It is further well-established that the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel must yield when the equity so require. If it can be shown by the Government or public authority that having regard to the facts as they have transpired, it would be unequitable to hold the Government or public authority to the promise or representation made by it, the Court would not raise an equity in favour of the person to whom the promise or representation is made and enforce the promise or representation against the Government or public authority. The Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel would be displaced in such a case because on the facts, equity would not require that the Government or public authority should be held bound by the promise or representation made by it (vide Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd., (supra)."
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next