Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)The Customs Act, 1962
Hindustan Motors Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 3 August, 1953
In Hindustan Motors Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., (1980 E.L.T. 423) an identical question of rear dumpers and their exigibility under Item 34 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Act was examined. Following the decision of the Supreme Court their Lordships of the Delhi High Court held that the manufacturer's description showed that the dumpers were designed for use on roads, of course at slower speed, because they have to carry great loads. Similar arguments as in this case were raised by both the parties and the Delhi High Court concluded that the definition of "Motor vehicle" as given in Item 34 would govern the issue and not what has been stated in other enactments or literature. Shri S.G. Sundaraswamy argued that the decision of the Delhi High Court would not apply to the present facts. We do not accept this contention because we see from the annexures to the show cause notice number of instances when the dumpers were driven on roads covering long distances. Vehicles have been sent to Ahmadnagar, Balimala, Akola and Poona etc. Letters to other State authorities (Regional Transport Departments) further show that these dumpers were intended to transverse long distances by road. This clinching factor shows that these dumpers are in fact adapted for use upon public roads.
Bolani Ores Ltd. Etc vs State Of Orissa Etc on 24 September, 1974
In Bolani Ores case the term 'motor vehicle adapted for use upon roads' came up for scrutiny and it was held that the word 'road' in Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act would mean a public road and that a motor vehicle which is not adapted for use upon roads to which public have no right to access is not a motor vehicle within the meaning of that Act.
The Industries (Development And Regulation) Act, 1951
Section 36 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Vipul Shipyard vs Collector Of Central Excise on 16 July, 1984
In 1985 (19) ELT 122-Vipul Shipyard v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay) the Tribunal had to consider the term 'ocean going vessels' occurring in Schedule to Notification 55/75-CE dated 1-3-75 (as amended) in respect of Tariff Item 68. It was held that if the vessels are ocean going vessels designed and constructed for such purposes then they were qualified for the exemption. Applying the principles of that ruling to the present fact it is manifest that the goods in dispute have been designed, constructed and adapted for use upon public roads. The end-use namely of its pre-dominant use in mining areas will have little relevancy in determining the classification.
Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Agarwal & Co. on 25 November, 1982
In 1983 E.L.T. 116 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Aggarwal & Co.) following the earlier Supreme Court decision held that the general term used for describing any commodity in any fiscal legislation, would cover that commodity or item or article in all its forms and varieties. Terms under excise tariff item should be given the widest scope.
Section 2 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
1