Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Delhi vs M/S Allied Air-Conditioning ... on 13 September, 2006 cites

M/S. Psi Data Systems Ltd., Bangalore vs Commissioner Of Customs Central ... on 12 June, 2001

A bare reading of the CEGAT's order makes the position clear that it has not analysed each item individually. It has also not indicated how the ratio in PSI's case (supra) has any relevance. The same was rendered in entirely different factual scenario. A judgment should be understood in the light of facts of the case and no more should be read into it than what it actually says. It is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a word or a sentence from the judgment divorced from the context of the question under consideration and treat it to be complete law decided by this Court. The judgment must be read as a whole and the observations from the judgment have to be considered in the light of the questions which were before this Court.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 1 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

Mehra Bros vs Joint Commercial Officer, Madras on 14 November, 1990

Another test may be whether a particular article or articles or parts, can be said to be available for sale in an automobile market or shops or places of manufacture; if the dealer says it to be available certainly such an article or part would be manufactured or kept for sale only as an accessory for the use in the motor vehicle, Of course, this may not also be a conclusive test but it is given by only way of illustration. It may be noted that some of the parts, in the case of a motor car like axle, steering, tyres, battery etc. are absolutely necessary accessories for the effective use of the motor vehicle. (See Mehra Brothers v. Joint Commercial Officer Madras (1991) 1 SCC 514).
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 20 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Star Paper Mills Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, Meerut on 22 August, 1989

In the absence of any definition of the term "component parts" it is permissible to refer to the dictionary meaning of the word "component". According to the Webster Comprehensive Dictionary, International Edition the word 'component" inter alia means a constituent part. (See Star Paper Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (1989) 4 SCC 724).
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 44 - N D Ojha - Full Document

Hindustan Sanitaryware And Industries ... vs Collector Of Customs on 2 November, 1999

By way of example, a spare part is a replacement part to replace a damaged or worn-out component but it is, nevertheless, a component part. In such cases, "Component" was the genus and 'spare' was a species thereof; it was a component which was used for replacement. (See Hindustan Sanitaryware & Industries Ltd. & Lakshmi Cement v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta (2000) 10 SCC 224).
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Mehboob Dawood Shaikh vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 January, 2004

(See Mehboob Dawood Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2004 (2) SCC 362). CEGAT has also been not analysed the respective stand of the appellant and the respondent on the issue of limitation elaborately. Various documents were pressed into service by the parties in support of their respective stand. The relevance of these documents has not been examined in detail by CEGAT.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 189 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1