Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.32 seconds)The Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003
The Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
Dharappa Sangappa Nandyal vs Bijapur Co-Operative Milk Producers ... on 26 April, 2007
"19. [B]ut before doing so, we have to note
that many a time, a principle laid down by
this Court with reference to the provisions of
a particular State Act is mechanically
followed to interpret cognate enactments of
other States, without first ascertaining
whether the provisions of the two
enactments are identical or similar. This
frequently happens with reference to the
laws relating to rent and accommodation
control, cooperative societies and land
revenue. Before applying the principles
enunciated with reference to another
enactment, care should be taken to find out
whether the provisions of the Act to which
such principles are sought to be applied, are
similar to the provisions of the Act with
reference to which the principles were
evolved."
Oswal Agro Mills Ltd vs Asstt. C.C.E on 4 February, 1994
In Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. v. CCE ((1993) Supp.
3 SCC 716 (at p.720)), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt
WA576/14 25
with the General Rules of Interpretation of Taxing Statues
in the following words:
Dunlop India Ltd vs Union Of India And Ors on 6 October, 1975
45. On the other hand, if a product is specified, it
does not call for any 'Common Parlance Test', as has been
held in Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of India and Others
((1976) 2 SCC 241). While holding that VP Latex was to be
classified as "raw rubber" under Item 39 of the Indian Tariff
Act, 1934, the Court observed:
Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise, Nagpur on 30 March, 1995
46. It is further instructive to refer to Shree
Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd. v. Collector of
Central Excise, Nagpur ((1996) 9 SCC 402), wherein the
appellant's product "Dant Lal Manjan" could not qualify as a
WA576/14 32
medicament. In that context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has observed as follows:
Khandelwal Metal & Engineering Works ... vs Union Of India And Others on 11 June, 1985
48. Coming to the Rules of Interpretation of
Schedules, it is well established that the question of
classification of goods under the "Import Tariff" cannot be
decided by implications, when there are Rules of
Interpretation which are specially framed to aid and assist
the classification of goods under appropriate Headings.
Those Rules must have precedence over other aids of
interpretation. (Ref. Khandelwal Metal and Engg. Works
v. Union of India ((1985) 3 SCC 620).
M/S Muller & Phipps (India) Limited vs The Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 5 May, 2004
In Muller & Phipps (India) Ltd. v. CCE
((2004) 4 SCC 787), the issue is whether Johnson's Prickly
Heat Powder and Phipps Processed Talc are patent or
proprietary medicines or whether they are cosmetics or
toilet preparations. Under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act,
1940 they have been treated as a drug and not a cosmetic
WA576/14 35
by the authorities. What is required to be considered,
according to the Apex Court, in matters of that nature,
where commodity taxation is taken up by the State
authorities, is that the court should be guided by the
manner of classification of the goods which are brought to
tax rather than the etymological meaning of the product in
question or the expert's opinion thereto.