Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.26 seconds)Section 25 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Customs Tariff Act, 1975 [Entire Act]
The Customs Act, 1962
Section 45 in The Finance Act, 2018 [Entire Act]
The Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931
Union Of India & Ors vs M/S Modi Rubber Limited on 18 August, 1986
19. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the notification of exemption dealt with auxiliary duty only and not with additional duty or basis duty. Learned counsel submitted that auxiliary duty is different from additional duty and basis duty and just because the goods were dealt with under a particular heading for the purpose of basic duty and additional duty, they could not be classified under the same heading for the purpose of auxiliary duty. Learned counsel invited our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Messrs Modi Rubber Ltd. - . In that case, the notification issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, used the expression 'duty of excise'. The Supreme Court held that the expression bears the same meaning which it has in Rule 8(1) and that meaning clearly is excise duty payable under the Central Excises and Salt Act, as envisaged in Rule 2, clause (v), and that it cannot in the circumstances bear an extended meaning so as to include special excise duty and auxiliary excise duty. It was, therefore, held that the assessee was entitled to exemption only in respect of basis duty of excise leviable under the Central Excises and Salt Act, and not entitled to claim any exemption in respect of special duty of excise or additional duty of excise of auxiliary duty of excise. We are at a loss to understand how this decision can help the respondent in the present case. Auxiliary duty is levied under Section 45(1) of the Finance Act. As we have been already, the headings found in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act are adopted for the purpose of auxiliary duty. Exemption from auxiliary duty is granted by the power under Section 45(4) of the Finance Act read with Section 25 of the Customs Act. The said headings as are relevant for levying the auxiliary duty will be applicable or the application of the notification of exemption.
Nagpur Electric Light And Power Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 23 January, 1987
20. It was next argued that just because the respondent had the benefit of exemption from the whole of the additional duty under Notification No. 268-Cus., dated 2.8.1976 and a reduction of the duty to 30% ad valorem under Notification No. 271-Cus., dated 26-9-1981, the respondent cannot be deprived of the benefit of Notification No. 62/83, dated 1.3.1983 as there is no provision in law denying a double benefit to a tax-payer. Reliance is placed on the decision in C.P & Berar Provincial Co-op Bank. Ltd., Nagpur v. Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P., Lucknow, 14 ITR 479 and Commissioner of Income Tax Central Madras v. Express Newspapers Ltd., 124 ITR 117 in support of the said proposition. Again, the proposition is not disputed by learned counsel for the appellants. It is not the contention of the appellant that the respondent would be getting a double advantage if the Notification No. 62/83 is applied to the goods in question, and, therefore, the notification is not available to them; but, the contention is that on the terms of the notification, it cannot be invoked by the respondent. We have already held that a notification will not apply to the goods imported by the respondent under a contract registered under Heading No. 84.77.
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madras ... vs Express Newspapers (P.) Ltd. on 23 December, 1976
20. It was next argued that just because the respondent had the benefit of exemption from the whole of the additional duty under Notification No. 268-Cus., dated 2.8.1976 and a reduction of the duty to 30% ad valorem under Notification No. 271-Cus., dated 26-9-1981, the respondent cannot be deprived of the benefit of Notification No. 62/83, dated 1.3.1983 as there is no provision in law denying a double benefit to a tax-payer. Reliance is placed on the decision in C.P & Berar Provincial Co-op Bank. Ltd., Nagpur v. Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P., Lucknow, 14 ITR 479 and Commissioner of Income Tax Central Madras v. Express Newspapers Ltd., 124 ITR 117 in support of the said proposition. Again, the proposition is not disputed by learned counsel for the appellants. It is not the contention of the appellant that the respondent would be getting a double advantage if the Notification No. 62/83 is applied to the goods in question, and, therefore, the notification is not available to them; but, the contention is that on the terms of the notification, it cannot be invoked by the respondent. We have already held that a notification will not apply to the goods imported by the respondent under a contract registered under Heading No. 84.77.