Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing Naffar Chandra Jute Mills Ltd. And Ors. vs The Assistant Collector Of Central ... on 3 March, 1993

Modi Xerox Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 12 December, 1997

In the case of Naffar Chandra Jute Mills Ltd. v. Asstt. Collector, Central Excise [1993 (66) E.L.T. 574 (Calcutta)] it had been observed that the Rules 2(b) and 3(b) of the general rules of interpretation to Central Excise Tariff were not confirmed to statutory tariff schedule alone but were applicable to the exemption notification as well. As we have observed above the general rules other than Rule 1 will come into picture only when the goods are not otherwise classifiable in terms of the headings read with Section/Chapter notes. As per explanatory notes under Rule 1 of the general rules, the Tariff sets out in systematic form the goods handled in international trade. It groups those goods in sections, chapters and sub-chapters which have been given titles indicating as concisely as possible the categories or types of goods they cover. It has been explained that in many cases, however, the variety and number of goods classified in a Section or Chapter are such that it is impossible to cover them all or to cite them specifically in the titles. It has been further explained that the classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes. Were the headings or the chapter notes do not cover then only the other general rules will be applicable. The goods in question are clearly classifiable without recourse to any further consideration of the interpretation rules.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tribhuwan Kharwar vs State Of Bihar on 20 December, 1993

16. A learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in the case of Soemairaj and Ors. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise 1993 Cr LJ 844 has come to the same conclusion by observing that the Act deals with the offences which have got the potential to cause serious injury to the society as a whole, as compared to any other offences under other laws. The learned Judge further observed that there can be no laxity in the enforcement of the provisions of the Act. The offence investigated in a case this Act, has national and international ramifications and it is not easy to complete the investigation and file a complaint within a time bound schedule of 90 days or so. Concluding the discussion, the court held that if, therefore, in spite of this awareness, the accused person is allowed to go on bail on any technical plea such as the one canvassed before the court that would defeat the very object of law.
Patna High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Dharti Agro Chemicals Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise-Nagpur on 22 December, 2022

E/87127/2018 14 Highlighting the extending of concessional rate of duty for 'micronutrients' under chapter 28, 29 and 38 that are also covered by Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, there is an explicit denial of relevance to the said order in determining classification. This is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in Naffar Chandra Jute Mills Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise [1993 (66) ELT 574 (Cal)] and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maestro Motors Ltd [2004 (174) ELT 289 (SC)] requiring that the same rules of interpretation should apply to the classification as well as for coverage in exemption notification. The reference to Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 in the exemption notification should apply equally to classification as 'fertilizers' especially in conjunction with note 6 of chapter 31 of First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In paragraph 5, the circular overlooks its own instruction in paragraph 2.3 to direct classification under residual heading 3824 as 'chemical products not elsewhere specified' if these micronutrients be composed only of trace elements. This instruction to classify 'micronutrients' under the residual sub-heading 3824 90 of a residual chapter 38 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 runs counter to the statutory mandate to assign classification with reference to notes of chapter and sections in rule 1 of the General Rules for Interpretation of the First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; note 1(a) of chapter 38 clearly excludes separate chemically defined compounds, barring a few, from coverage under this chapter and, if 'micronutrients' are not fertilizers, they are to be classified on merit based on their composition.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ruia Cotex Ltd. vs Cc (Air Cargo), Nch on 3 April, 2002

8. We would like to refer to the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court's judgment in the case of Naffar Candra Jute Mills Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise relied upon by the appellants. The Hon'ble Court in the said decision held that the expression--'bags of jute'--appearing in Notification No. 65/87-CE dt. 1.3.87 does not mean that the bags should be made entirely or exclusively of jute and the polyline jute bags would also earn the exemption. The Court held that inasmuch as the notification did not use the expressions such as 'only' or 'exclusively' or 'entirely' for classifying the inputs, the remarks--'made of do not mean 'made exclusively of. By applying the same ratio in the present case, the Notification nowhere uses the expression that the imported machines should be used directly in the manufacture of textile garments.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Rupa & Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs, Kolkata on 31 January, 2002

9. We would like to refer to the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court's judgment in the case of Naffar Chandra Jute Mills Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise reported in 1993 (66) E.L.T. 574 (Cal.) relied upon by the appellants. The Hon'ble Court in the said decision held that the expression - 'bags of jute' - appearing in Notification No. 65/87-C.E., dated 1-3-87 does not mean that the bags should be made entirely or exclusively of jute and the poly-line jute bags would also earn the exemption. The Court held that inasmuch as the Notification did not use the expressions such as 'only' or 'exclusively' or 'entirely' for classifying the inputs, the remarks - 'made of do not mean 'made exclusively of. By applying the same ratio in the present case, the Notification nowhere uses the expression that the imported machines should be used directly in the manufacture of textile garments.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta Cites 4 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1   2 Next