Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.41 seconds)
Documents citing Rainbow Surgical Dressing Mfg. Co. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 30 December, 1980

Alpine Industries vs Collector Of Central Excise on 5 September, 1995

In the Rainbow Industries's case, the Supreme Court held that if the department had accepted the price list, acted upon it and the goods were cleared with a knowledge of the Department, in the absence of any amendment of the law or judicial pronouncement, the classification should be effective from the date of issue of Show Cause Notice. The Principal Collector, in his order, has confirmed the demand for a period prior to the issue of Show Cause Notice. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the demand would be effective from the date of Show Cause Notice, and would not cover the previous six months. No intention to evade duty was cited in the Show Cause Notice which the Principal Collector has adjudicated. However, this would not be applicable for the later period, since there was no change in the classification. In the result, therefore, except [the] modification in the preceding paragraphs, we confirm the orders appealed against.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Christine Hoden (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs N.D. Gadag And Ors. on 16 March, 1992

17. In this respect we were told by the learned Counsel that it was necessary in given circumstances to look at the petitions and to the grounds in respect whereof the tax benefits were sought to be obtained by the petitioners. The learned Counsel contended that it seems clear that the sole ground for the refund claimed are the judgments of the Gujarat High Court and that no other grounds were even placed before the assessing authority. With regard to these judgments, namely, the judgment in Sunalis case, the learned Counsel again contended that the decision based by the Gujarat High Court is a judgment on admission which does not lay down any law while in Rainbow's case the subject matter of the decision was particularly gauze and surgical roll bandages which are articles quite different from sanitary pads. The learned Counsel further contended that all the judgments relied upon by the petitioners and also the Trade Notice No. 32 of 1980 are entirely based on the Drugs Act and thus the aforesaid judgments could not have any binding effect in the instant cases and at the most it might bear some pursuasive value only.
Bombay High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ultratech Cement Limited vs Union Of India on 1 July, 2025

Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in the matter of Rainbow Infrastructure vs. Union of India & Ors. in R/Special Civil Application No.536/2025, wherein, the Authorities have invoked the powers under Section 74 of the Act, 2017 for levy of GST on the royalty paid by the petitioner for quarry lease granted by the State Government. In the said case, a stay has been granted in favour of the petitioner.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Eimco Elecon (India) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 11 April, 2002

6. It is next contended that the extended period of limitation will not be available to the department because there has been no suppression; the appellant had declared the goods in its classification list as it cleared the goods during part of the period as part of an air motor and during the remaining period as a part in Heading 84.83. This includes parts suitable for use solely or principally with the machinery of Headings 84.25 to 84.30 - pulley tackle and hoists other than skip hoists, winches and capstans; jacks, fork-lift trucks, other works trucks fitted with lifting or handling equipment etc. other lifting, handling and loading or unloading machinery; bull-dozer and similar machinery; other moving grading, levelling, scraping etc. machinery. The conclusion of the Commissioner from this is that the appellant had not declared at any time the goods under consideration as pinion. We do not see how from the description of the goods either as parts or motors or part of any of the other machinery that we have briefly referred to, the departmental officers would have been in a position to conclude that the goods, the classification 'of which they approved as claimed, were, in fact, gearing or gear. We are therefore of the view that the extended period of limitation has rightly been invoked. The ratio of the Supreme Court's judgment in Rainbow Industries v. Union of India 1994 (74) E.L.T. 3 will not apply.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1