Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.30 seconds)
M/S. Atherton Engg. Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs(Airport), ... on 19 January, 2010 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs Venkateswara Hatcheries (P) Ltd on 24 March, 1999

3. The contention of the Appellant is that now there is certain changes in the Chapter 5 of Customs Tariff whereby Artemia was specifically classifiable under Sub-Heading 051199.11. The contention is that this aspect was not there when the earlier case was decided by the Tribunal. The Appellant also relied upon the explanation at Sl.No.56 to the general exemption Notification No.21/02-CUS dated 01.03.2002 as amended where the explanation is for the removal of doubt for Prawn Feed shall mean Shrimp which are capable of if used as such without any addition or alteration thereto. The contention is that as per the understanding of the Revenue in view of the above explanation the goods are classifiable under 2309.90. The Appellant also relied upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P) Ltd.  [1999] 237 ITR 0174 and in the case of Rajbir Singh Dalal vs. Chaudhuri Devi Lal University, Sirsa  2008-JT-8-621 to submit that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of the decision.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 138 - V N Khare - Full Document

Rajbir Singh Dalal vs Chaudhari Devi Lal University & Anr on 6 August, 2008

3. The contention of the Appellant is that now there is certain changes in the Chapter 5 of Customs Tariff whereby Artemia was specifically classifiable under Sub-Heading 051199.11. The contention is that this aspect was not there when the earlier case was decided by the Tribunal. The Appellant also relied upon the explanation at Sl.No.56 to the general exemption Notification No.21/02-CUS dated 01.03.2002 as amended where the explanation is for the removal of doubt for Prawn Feed shall mean Shrimp which are capable of if used as such without any addition or alteration thereto. The contention is that as per the understanding of the Revenue in view of the above explanation the goods are classifiable under 2309.90. The Appellant also relied upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P) Ltd.  [1999] 237 ITR 0174 and in the case of Rajbir Singh Dalal vs. Chaudhuri Devi Lal University, Sirsa  2008-JT-8-621 to submit that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of the decision.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 252 - M Katju - Full Document
1