Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.02 seconds)
Commissioner Of Customs, New Delhi vs M/S. Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd on 30 August, 2001 cites

Scientific Engineering House (P) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Andhra ... on 1 November, 1985

In any event, one of the basic cannon of interpretation of statute is that the legislature intends to ascribe the ordinary common parlance and meaning to the words used therein. In the matter under consideration, the legislature has used the word 'printed books' and clarified it by inclusion of covers - the intent thus seems to be rather obvious to mean books in ordinary sense and not any other meaning. The legislature has also included 'printed manuals' and explained it by express words "including those in the loose leaf form with binder". Can the articles imported be termed to be 'printed manuals' in 'loose leaf form with binder', unfortunately, the answer cannot be in the affirmative. It contains specifications in terms of a technology transfer agreement, it is not a collection of various articles in trade journals but a definite importation of technology transfer which obviously was not intended to mean by the user of the word 'manual'. The word 'manual' means and implies 'a small book for handy use and includes a reference book, a hand-book as also a text book (vide Concise Oxford Dictionary) and on attribution of the same meaning, the words used by the legislature cannot identify to be a product of technology transfer between two countries. Ordinary common parlance ought to be attributed for the expressions used by the legislature and on attribution thereof one cannot possibly come to a conclusion that the exemption notification ever aimed at extending the meaning to the extent as has been effected by the Tribunal. The decision of this Court in Scientific Engineering (supra) has been totally misread and misapplied in the contextual facts - Scientific Engineering (supra) on the contrary lends all possible credence to the contentions as propagated by the appellants and not the Respondents.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 208 - V D Tulzapurkar - Full Document
1