Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.54 seconds)Annapurna Carbon Industries Co vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 9 March, 1976
(2) In the case of Annapurna Carbon Industries Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1976 (37) STC - 378 (S.C.), the scope of the term 'accessories' was elaborated in the following manner :-
Commissioner Of Customs, Kolkatta vs M/S. Grand Prime Limited And Ors on 7 July, 2003
The Tribunal has held that Voltage Stabilizer used to regulate the input-current and give a particular determined output which can be fed to in all of the electrically operated machines is not a accessory of refrigerating and air-conditioning appliances so as to exclude from the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. or 1/93-C.E.
She also drew our attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata v. Grand Prime Ltd., , wherein it was observed that Customs Act does not contain any provision regarding re-export of goods. It gives power of confiscation of goods which are illegally imported and for various other reasons enumerated in Section 111 of the Act.
Section 111 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Collector Of Customs vs Jolly Exports (P) Limited on 12 August, 1986
(1) Collector of Customs v. Jolly Exports (P) Ltd. - 1990 (45) E.L.T. 612 wherein it was held that an 'accessory' means something which contributes in a subordinate degree to attain a general result or effect. If a machinery cannot be worked without the part, then it ceases to be an accessory. If it adds merely to the convenience or effectiveness of a machinery like a speedometer it would be an accessory.
Nirulas Corner House Pvt. Ltd vs Collector Of Customs, Bombay on 28 April, 1999
(1) Nirulas Corner House Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, , wherein the Supreme Court has held that Can filler fruit feeder and ripple machine are all independent machines and not accessories to the continuance ice cream freezer.
Eureka Forbes Ltd. vs Cce on 26 February, 2004
(3) In Eureka Forbes Ltd. v. CCE, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 533, the Larger Bench held that the Prefilter is suggested for enhancing the utility of the activated carbon column, it cannot be taken as an essential part of Aquaguard but only an accessory to it The Tribunal held that an object or device which adds to the effectiveness of something else cannot be considered to be an integral part of the equipment but it can only be an 'accessory'.
Electronics Ltd. vs Superintendent Of Central Excise on 25 August, 1993
(2) In the case of Electronics Ltd. v. Superintendent of Central Excise, the Apex Court has held that Trolleys for coolers classifiable as steel furniture under Item 40 of erstwhile Central Excise tariff and not treatable as non-dutiable accessories for coolers.
M/S Sen & Pandit Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 7 August, 2001
(3) In the case of Sen and Pandit Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-I, .
1