Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.56 seconds)
Documents citing The State Of Gujarat vs Minu Chemical Pvt. Ltd. on 18 December, 1981

Union Carbide India Ltd. vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 14 June, 1996

In State of Gujarat v. Minu Chemical Pvt. Ltd. [1982] 50 STC 339, it was held by another Bench of the Gujarat High Court that an article to be machinery must either be a completed machine or a number of completed machines, or parts or members of a machine which, when they are assembled, form a complete machine. The assessee therein was carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling chemicals. During the relevant accounting year, the assessee purchased certain articles and in the course of the assessment proceedings under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, claimed set-off in respect of the amount of tax paid by it on the purchase of the above articles on the ground that the said articles were "machinery" used by it in the manufacture of goods for sale. It is in this manner that the question arose whether the articles purchased by the assessee constituted "machinery". The Division Bench referred to the literal meaning of the word "machinery" in English dictionaries, and to the decision of the Privy Council referred to above, and held that inasmuch as the articles in question are found to be parts of the plant which consists of a processing unit, those articles must be treated as machinery.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 53 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Sibson Construction And Co. on 5 June, 1996

13. Mr. Joshi has drawn our attention to a decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Minu Chemical Pvt. Ltd. [1982] 50 STC 339. In the said case, their Lordships had occasion to deal with the point whether a steel tank could be said to be a machinery. After considering all aspects of the matter, the High Court came to the conclusion that a steel tank could not be said to be machinery.
Gauhati High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

State Of Tamil Nadu vs Gith Corporation on 7 September, 1995

So also, while considering the meaning of the word "machinery", the Gujarat High Court, in the case of State of Gujarat v. Minu Chemical Pvt. Ltd. [1982] 50 STC 339 relying upon the decision of the Privy Council in Corporation of Calcutta v. Cossipore Municipality AIR 1922 PC 27; ILR 49 Cal 190, held that the meaning assigned to the word "machinery" in the dictionary as well as in the judicial decisions referred to by it, makes it clear that an article to be machinery must either be a completed machines, or a number of completed machines, or parts or members of a machine which, when they are assembled, form a complete machine.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - T J Chouta - Full Document

Vallabh Glass Works vs State Of Gujarat on 16 April, 1991

In support of this submission, Mr. Mody, learned advocate appearing for the applicant, relies upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Minu Chemical Pvt. Ltd. reported in [1982] 50 STC 339. It may be stated that in that case the Division Bench was dealing with the claim of exemption under this very notification issued by the State Government. The assessee before the Division Bench was a certified manufacturer who had established new industry within the meaning of this very entry 53(1) of the Government Notification, dated 11th November, 1970. Before the Division Bench the assessee purchased certain articles, namely.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - G T Nanavati - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Sibson Construction & Co. on 5 June, 1996

7. Mr. Joshi has drawn our attention to a decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Minu Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (1982) 50 STC 339 (Guj). In the said case, their Lordships had occasion to deal with the point whether a steel tank could be said to be a machinery. After considering all aspects of the matter, the High Court came to the conclusion that a steel tank could not be said to be machinery.
Gauhati High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

India Leaf Spring Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 29 June, 1988

In State of Gujarat v. Minu Chemical Pvt. Ltd. [1982] 50 STC 339, it was held by another Bench of the Gujarat High Court that an article to be machinery must either be a completed machine or a number of completed machines, or parts or members of a machine which, when they are assembled, form a complete machine. The assessee therein was carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling chemicals. During the relevant accounting year, the assessee purchased certain articles and in the course of the assessment proceedings under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, claimed set-off in respect of the amount of tax paid by it on the purchase of the above article on the ground that the said articles were "machinery" used by it in the manufacture of goods for sale. It is in this manner that the question arose whether the articles purchased by the assessee constituted "machinery". The Division Bench referred to the literal meaning of the word "machinery" in English dictionaries, and to the decision of the Privy Council referred to above, and held that inasmuch as the articles in question are found to be parts of the plant which consists of a processing unit, those articles must be treated as machinery.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 9 - Cited by 4 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Hindustan Copper Limited Represented ... vs The Additional Commissioner on 16 April, 2026

The Gujarat High Court in The State of Gujarat v. Minu Chemical Pvt. Ltd. [1982] 50 STC 63, which was extensively cited before us, affirmed drawing from Webster's Dictionary and the Privy Council dictum that the word 'machinery' includes 'the component parts of a complex machine'. This Court respectfully adopts and applies this principle.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - V Rusia - Full Document
1