Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.53 seconds)
Collr. Of Customs vs Hydranautics Membrane (India) Ltd. on 25 January, 1994 cites

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

In the case of Star Paper Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 178, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in the absence of any definition of any word or expression in the statute, it would be permissible to refer to the dictionary meaning of that word or expression. We find that the word "part" which has not been defined in the Notification No. 155/86, according to the Chembers Twentieth Century Dictionary means :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 44 - N D Ojha - Full Document

Dipen Textiles (P) Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 5 June, 1992

2. Appearing on behalf of the appellant, Shri B.K. Singh, Learned SDR stated that the observation of the Collector (Appeals) that cutting of the material in the form of rolls is not recognised as manufacture is erroneous. He stated that in the case of Dipen Textiles (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1992 (62) E.L.T. 430 the Tribunal has held that slitting and cutting of jumbo rolls of video magnetic tapes into pancakes amounts to manufacture. He submitted that the imported goods being in running length had to be deemed as raw materials.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 39 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Shriram Refrigeration Industries Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 17 August, 1992

5. The appellants contention is that the Collector (Appeals) has erred in holding that the imported materials in running length could be deemed as parts since all that was required before putting the materials in the form of rolls to use as parts was to cut them to the required size and such cutting would not constitute manufacture of a raw product. In this regard we find that it is well settled that the goods have to be assessed in the form in which they are' imported or presented for assessment. It has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Shriram Refrigeration Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, reported in 1993 (63) E.L.T. 593 that classification of goods depends on their condition at the time of their import. Hence the question whether the imported goods can be deemed as covered by the Notification No. 155/86 has to be decided only by taking into account the form in which they have been imported. For this reason, in our view, the argument that the goods could be converted into usable parts by the simple process of cutting which would not constitute manufacture, is not relevant.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Bharat Cottage Industries vs Union Of India on 31 October, 1991

8. It has also been contended on behalf of the respondents that the D.G.T.D. certificate required in terms of the condition of the Notification No. 155/86 having been filed by the importers, the Customs authorities were not entitled to sit in judgment regarding the validity of the certificate or deny the exemption under the said notification. In this regard we find that Notification 155/86 exempts partially from duty parts which are proved to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector, to be required for the purpose of initial setting up, or for the assembly or manufacture of any of the articles specified in Column (2) of the Table annexed to the Notification. The exemption under the notification is further subject to the condition that concerned specified authority is satisfied and certifies the description and quantity of the parts in question are or will be required for the purpose specified in the Notification and recommends grant of the exemption. The Assistant Collector had held that the imported goods were raw materials and not 'parts'. It is therefore evident that the goods were not proved to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector to be parts required for the purpose of initial setting up, or for the assembly or manufacture of any of the articles specified in Column (2) of the Notification. It has been held by the Bombay High Court in the case of Bharat Cottage Industries v. Union of India, reported in 1992 (59) E.L.T. 30 (Bom.) that every word used in an exemption notification has to be given effect to. Since we have concurred with the Assistant Collector's finding that in respect of the imported goods, the primary requirement laid down in Notification No. 155/86 that they should be 'parts' was not satisfied, we hold that the contention of the respondents that the goods in question were eligible for exemption since they were covered by a certificate issued by the D.G.T.D. as required by the condition of notification, has to be rejected. In any case, the said certificate could not have been of any assistance to the respondents since as seen from the following extracts from the copy of the D.G.T.D. certificate filed by the Learned Counsel for the respondents on 15-12-1993, after conclusion of the hearing, the application for the required certificate filed by the respondents describing the goods to be imported under the heading "Details of the components/raw materials with technical specifications" was merely signed by the Asstt. Development Officer with the remark "Attested for duty concession" without indicating in each case whether the item was 'part' or 'raw material' :-
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1