Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.19 seconds)
Union Of India And Others vs The Century Spg. And Mfg. Co. Ltd. on 1 July, 1985 cites

Dunlop India Ltd vs Union Of India And Ors on 6 October, 1975

8. As pointed out by the learned Trial Judge, with whose reasoning we are in respectful agreement, there is no unanimity even amongst the western technical experts as to which fabrics are to be considered as water repellent and which are to be considered as water-proofed. What is more important, we are not concerned so much with the technical interpretation of the terms "water repellent" or "water-proof". Tariff entries as well as terminology used in excise notifications relating to such tariff entries, must be interpreted in the manner in which they would be understood by the trading community to which such tariff entries and tariff notifications apply. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in 1983 E.L.T. 1566 (S.C.) = AIR 1977 S.C. 597 at page 606, "Meanings given to articles in a fiscal statute must be as people in trade and commerce, conversant with the subject, generally treat and understand them in the usual course.... Technical and scientific tests offer guidance only within limits. Once the articles are in circulation and come to be described and known in common parlance, we then see no difficulty for statutory classification under a particular entry."
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 290 - P K Goswami - Full Document

Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd.,And ... vs The Union Of India And Others(And ... on 8 January, 1958

Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and others and in the case of M/s. Rathi Khandsari Udyog, etc. v. State of U.P. . In the present case the notifications do not Make any distinction between water repellent and water-proofed cloth. Nor do they refer to any technical tests. The term "water-proofed cloth" is well known in the trade in this country. The petitioners have relied upon a large number of affidavits made by people in the umbrella trade as well as people in the textile trade to the effect that the cloth in question manufactured by the petitioners is known in the market as water-proofed umbrella cloth. There is no material produced by the respondents which would go to show that in the textile trade cloth manufactured by the petitioners or cloth of a similar type is known as water repellent cloth. In the absence of any material to this effect produced by the respondents, the material produced by the petitioners must be accepted. Hence there is ample material to show that in the extile trade the cloth in question is known as water-proofed cloth. If this is so it must be classified as such under the Notifications in question.
Supreme Court of India Cites 97 - Cited by 335 - Full Document
1