Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.26 seconds)Motipur Zamindari Co. Ltd vs The State Of Bihar And Another.Raja ... on 17 April, 1953
In Motipur Zaminadari's case it was held
that sugarcane was not vegetable. In Porritts & Spencer
(Asia) Lid. v. State of Haryana, [1979] 1 SCR 545 this Court
held that Dryer felts' are not textiles. In that context
the principle of understanding the meaning of the word in
common parlance was adopted.
State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Washi Ahmed Etc on 7 March, 1977
In Washi Ahmed's case green ginger
was held to be vegetable within the meaning of the word used
in common parlance.
Indo International Industries vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Uttar ... on 25 March, 1981
The ratio in Indo Metal case, therefore, is inapplicable.
As rightly contended by Sri Ganguli that the doctrine of
placement of a particular goods in a particular tariff item
or residuary i.e. parentage or orphanage i.e. in placement
of toilet soaps
389
in either sub-items is not attracted to the facts as it is
not a case of residuary items but of sub-classification
within the same item.
P.A. Thillai Chidambara Nadar vs The Addl. Appellate Asstt. ... on 29 July, 1985
Same view was reiterated in P.A. Chillai
Chidambara Nadar v. Addl. Appellate Asst. Commissioner.
Madurai and Anr. [1985] 4 SCC 30 that coconut is neither a
fresh fruit nor a vegetable.
Khandelwal Metal & Engineering Works ... vs Union Of India And Others on 11 June, 1985
In khandelwal Metal Works v.
Union of India, [1985] Supp. 1 SCR 750 at 774 B-C this Court
held that court cannot decide classification
386
of goods under Import Tariff by implication. If rules of
interpretation are made in the Act, they should be applied
and interpretation would be made with their aid for
classification. The court held that brass scrap is not
metal alloy. Craises on Statute Law (7th Edition) at pace
164 specified one of the Rules of Interpretation of Statutes
as extracted below:
Bharuch Coconut Trading Co. And Ors vs Municipal Corporation Of The City ... on 27 November, 1990
In Shri Bharuch Coconut Trading Co. and Ors. v. Municipal
Corporation of the city of Ahemdabad and Ors., [1992] Suppl.
1 SCC 298 this Court applied the test as "would a
householder when asked to bring some fresh fruits or some
vegetable for the evening meal bring Coconut too as
vegetable? Obviously the answer is in the negative". Again
when a person goes to a commercial market ask for coconuts,
"no one will consider brown coconut to be vegetable or fresh
fruit, no householder would purchase it as a fruit.
Therefore, the meaning of the word brown coconut, whether it
is a green fruit has to be understood in its ordinary
commercial parlance". Accordingly it was held that brown
coconut was not green fruit. In interpreting the statute
the individual appraisal of the wisdom or unwisdom of a
particular course consciously selected by the Legislature is
to be put aisde.
Dunlop India Ltd vs Union Of India And Ors on 6 October, 1975
In Dunlop India Ltd. v.
Union of India & Ors. [1976] 2 SCR 98 this Court found the
entry not in residuary but placed in the parentage and
relieved it from orphanage.
Superintendent Of Central Excise, ... vs Vac Met Corpn. (P) Ltd., Etc. Etc. on 6 August, 1985
In Superintendent of central
Excise, Surat v. Vac Metal Corporaion Ltd. AIR 1986 SC
1167 when the revenue contended that metalised yarn fell
within general Tariff entry 18 yarn and synthetic fibres",
this court held that entry 15A (2) first schedule of Central
Excise & Salt Act's specific entry relating to articles made
of plastics of "all sorts" and metalised yam wax exigible to
lessor tariff duty.
Babu Manmohan Das Shah & Ors vs Bishun Das on 12 October, 1966
In Manmohad Das v.
Vishnu Das, AIR 1967 SC 643 a Constitution bench held as
follows: