Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.63 seconds)Section 2 in Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
Section 3 in Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Burmah Shell Oil Storage &Distributing ... vs The Belgaum Borough Municipality on 16 November, 1962
6. Learned senior counsel placed the reliance on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Burmah Shell Oil Storage And Distributing
Co of India Ltd Vs Belgaum Borough Municipality reported in AIR
(1963) SC 906 held that the retention or repositioning of the goods in the
local area concerned for ultimate consumption by the consumers in the
local area.
S.M. Ram Lal & Co. vs Secretary To Government Of Punjab on 3 April, 1969
In the case of S.M. Ramlal Co Vs Secretary to Government of
Punjab reported in (1995) 14 TLD 10 the Apex Court has explained the
coupling of the three words consumption, use or sale while dealing with
the question that when the wool purchased in Delhi was brought for dying
at the factory in Faridabad and sent back to Delhi, could it be said that the
wool was brought for use and was liable to Octroi, the Apex Court held
that the expression "used" is not defined in the Act, in its ordinary meaning
the word 'use' as a noun, is the act of employing a thing, putting into action
or service, employing for or applying to a given purpose. But the word
'use' occurring in Entry 52 List-II of VIIth Schedule to the Constitution,
sandwiched between consumption and sale, must take colour from the
context in which it occurs. It is settled rule of interpretation that when two
or more words which are susceptible or analogous meaning, are coupled
together they are understood to be used in their cognate sense they take as
it were, their colour from each other, i.e. more general is restricted to a
sense analogous to the less general.
Mafatlal Industries Ltd vs Nadiad Nagar Palika And Anr on 1 March, 2000
35. It is trite to state that 'manufacture' can be said to have taken
place only when there is transformation of raw materials into a new
and different article having a different identity, characteristic and
use. While mere improvement in quality does not amount to
manufacture, when the change or a series of changes transform the
commodity such that commercially it can no longer be regarded as
the original commodity but recognised as a new and distinct article.
In the instant case, after going through the various steps that are
carried out by the assessee for getting surgical cotton from raw
cotton, we can certainly say that cotton has undergone a change into
a new commercially identifiable commodity which has a different
name, different character and different use. The process of
transformation is not merely processing to improve the quality or
superficial attributes of the raw cotton. The cotton looses its original
form and it marketed as a commercially different and distinct
product. This aspect of the matter is rightly noticed by the High
Court by relying upon the decision of this Court in Empire Industries
case (supra) wherein this Court has explained the meaning of the
expression 'manufacture' as when the result of the treatment, labour
and manipulation a new commercial commodity has emerged which
has a distinctive new character and use.
Pawan Alloys And Casting Pvt. Ltd Meerut ... vs U.P. State Electricity Board And Ors on 5 August, 1997
12. Learned senior counsel further added in his submissions that in
another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Aqueous victuals Pvt
Ltd Vs State of U.P. & Others reported in (1998) 5 SCC 474, where their
Lordships dealing with the question as to whether the empty bottles filled
with soft drinks re-exported after being emptied could be said to be used or
consumed in the local area has again laid stress on 'retention or reposition
of the commodity in the local area and has finally held that the bottles in
question cannot be said to be used in the local area.
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kerala vs M/S Tara Agencies on 9 July, 2007
16. Learned senior counsel submitted that judgment in the case of
Tata Tea Limited (supra) stands impliedly overruled by the later decision
of the Supreme Court in the case of DUGAR TEA INDUSTRIES
PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF ASSAM & OTHERS (2017) 99 VST
280 where the Apex court following earlier judgment in the case of CIT
Vs. Tara Agencies (2007) 292 ITR 444 (SC) has held that the process of
Tea blending does not amount to a process of manufacture, In view of the
later decision of the Supreme Court, the law laid down by the Division
Bench in the case of Tata Tea Limited (supra) can no longer be said to be a
good law, as such, the present matter deserves to be decided in the light of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 24-09-2024
15:21:19
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:25409