Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.17 seconds)
Golden Paper Udyog (P) Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 25 May, 1983 cites

Dalhousie Jute Co. Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 13 May, 1970

(ii) the Calcutta High Court in A.I.R. 1970 Calcutta 479 (Dalhousie Co. v. Union of India) holding, inter alia, that more coating of jute fabric with solution would not change the character of the product or transform it into another, and duty charged by difference in weight between the original jute fabric and the coated fabric was in reality duty on the coating material, not assessable to duty at all;
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

South Bihar Sugar Mills Ltd., Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 February, 1968

While relying on the meaning given to manufacture in A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 79 Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills) and A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 922 South Bihar Sugar Mills v. Union of India), the decision in the said case was, in the main, reached on the specific inclusion of the resultant product, namely. Asbestos fibre, in the Schedule, which conclusively determines its exigibility to duty, regardless of whether the process of making the fibre involved manufacture or not. "When the legislature has treated an article as manufacture, the argument is not open that it is not a manufacture". Again, it was observed, "legislature having determined that asbestos fibre is obtained by process of manufacture it would, I feel, be usually extremely hazardous and normally impermissible for the Court to say that this is not a manufacture". In the instant case, bituminisation as a process of manufacture had not been, unlike asbestos fibre, specifically adverted to and duty levied separately in Item 17(2) of the Schedule and if at all, can be said to have been included by a construction of the inclusive definition of "Paper or Paper Board" in item 17(2). The ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Delhi High Court is not strictly applicable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 188 - J M Shelat - Full Document

Standard Packagings vs Union Of India And Anr. on 21 November, 1980

5. Shri Khaitan, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted fairly, even at the outset, that while the decision of the Madras High Court in 1980 E.L.T. 579 Kwality Coated Products v. Govt. of India-(now stated to be the subject matter of an Appeal in the Supreme Court), supported his case in the Appeal, that in 1981 E.C.R. 113 (Standard Packaging v. Union of India) by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh was against his contentions.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 11 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) vs Delhi Cloth & General Mills on 12 October, 1962

While relying on the meaning given to manufacture in A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 79 Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills) and A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 922 South Bihar Sugar Mills v. Union of India), the decision in the said case was, in the main, reached on the specific inclusion of the resultant product, namely. Asbestos fibre, in the Schedule, which conclusively determines its exigibility to duty, regardless of whether the process of making the fibre involved manufacture or not. "When the legislature has treated an article as manufacture, the argument is not open that it is not a manufacture". Again, it was observed, "legislature having determined that asbestos fibre is obtained by process of manufacture it would, I feel, be usually extremely hazardous and normally impermissible for the Court to say that this is not a manufacture". In the instant case, bituminisation as a process of manufacture had not been, unlike asbestos fibre, specifically adverted to and duty levied separately in Item 17(2) of the Schedule and if at all, can be said to have been included by a construction of the inclusive definition of "Paper or Paper Board" in item 17(2). The ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Delhi High Court is not strictly applicable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1