Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.90 seconds)Advani-Oerlikon Ltd. And Another vs Union Of India And Others on 17 February, 1981
In the case of Advani Oerlikon Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. [1981 (8) E.L.T. 432 (Bombay)] of the Bombay High Court, it has been held in para 13 as under -
Union Of India And Ors vs Gujarat Woollen Felt Mills on 7 April, 1977
In the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Gujarat Woollen Felt Mills [AIR 1977 SC 1548], the Supreme Court has observed that "resort should be had not to the scientific or the technical meaning of such terms but to their popular meaning or the meaning attached to them by those dealing in them that is to say to their commercial sense". It follows from the reading of the above observations that we have to restrict ourselves to the meaning attached to them by those dealing in them that is to say to their commercial sense. In view of these rulings, the contention of the appellants that we have to read the meaning of the products as sockets as defined in 20th Century Chambers Dictionary and Concise Oxford Dictionary has to be rejected, but, however, we have to examine as to whether the products manufactured by the respondents is socket or cable terminal as urged by them. The respondents have emphatically denied that the cable terminals are sockets and has taken pains to distinguish its uses and implications by drawing our attention to the ISI specification and the product referred to by their customers. The customers have all along been describing the product as cable terminal and referring to the ISI specification IS-8309: 1976. The customers of the respondents have been able to clearly distinguish between sockets, which go along with switches campholders and junction boxes. The sub-heading 8536.90 covers these products which are for voltage nor exceeding 1000 volts. The products manufactured by the respondents namely terminal end/socket, wire pins, ferrules In-line connectors or shop on terminals, are completely different and are not designed according to voltage, as rightly contended by the respondents. Their usage is for various purposes e.g. in transformers, switchgears, railways, electricity boards, rectifiers, small electrical instruments. The products of the respondents are easily distinguishable. They cannot be taken as electrical equipments or apparatus. As rightly contended by the respondents, Counsel, they are part of the equipment which are quite small in size. The sockets generally mean a complete product itself and not a part of an equipment. The Customs authorities are able to easily distinguish sockets from terminal ends, which the respondents are contending by virtue of its various uses, sizes and functioning. The appellants attempt to bring the product cable terminal end a part of an electrical equipment as electrical equipment on the basis of dictionary meaning cannot be accepted as there is a vast distinction drawn from the popular meaning or the meaning attached to them by those dealing in them that is to say to their commercial sense.
Porrits & Spencer (Asia) Limited vs Union Of India And Another on 1 January, 1980
"Mr. Mehta urged the burden of proof even if it was on the Department was duly discharged by the Department inasmuch as the findings were based on standard text books and that the fact that the books were merely company in its affidavit in rejoinder. Mr. Mehta relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Anr. v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. [1977 E.L.T. J199 ; AIR 1963 SC 791] and on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Porrits and Spencer (Asia) Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. [1980 E.L.T. 679] where it was respectively held that the opinions of the Indian Standards Institute as expressed in the glossary of textile terms must be preferred to the opinions of authors and technical exports. It is difficult to see how those decisions can be of assistance to the respondents before me in view of the fact that neither the Superintendent nor the Appellate Collector nor the Revisional authority has relied on any opinion of the Indian Standards Institute. I do not see the implied admission alluded to by Mr. Mehta. It is futile to say that the books relied on by the Department are mere standard text books. They are not any the less what they actually are namely, highly technical books containing a wealth of technical information meant for technical people. It is reliance on such material by authorities that has consistently been frowned upon and condemned by the Supreme Court."
Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Madhya ... vs Jaswant Singh Charan Singh on 23 February, 1967
"From the order passed by the Superintendent it is clear that he has relied on his personal observations in factories in Bombay and to see the end use of CCMS wires or cuts. The appellate order discloses reliance on the end use of the product, reference to technical books and dictionary meaning. The revisional order discloses its reliance on the end use of the product. It is on such considerations that the Superintendent, the Appellate Collector and the Revisional authority held that the company's product viz. CCMS wires was attracted to excise duty under Tariff Item 50. However, what these authorities have palpably overlooked is that these considerations on which they have passed their impugned orders are the very considerations which the Supreme Court has repeatedly deprecated being taken into account to ascertain whether a particular commodity is attracted to excise duty or not. To illustrate in Commissioner of Sales-tax, Madhya Pradesh v. Jaswant Singh Outran Singh - AIR 1967 SC 1454, the Supreme Court observed -
Elson Machines (P) Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise on 15 November, 1988
In reply Shri Doiphode submitted that the Assistant Collector is justified in reclassifying the goods and that there is no infirmity or illegality in doing so. The Department is justified in revising the classification even after granting earlier approval and that the earlier approval do not cause estoppel and he relied upon the judgment in the case of Elson Machines (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs [1988 (38) E.L.T. 571 para 8].
Dunlop India Ltd vs Union Of India And Ors on 6 October, 1975
In Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of India - AIR 1977 SC 597, it was held by the Supreme Court that 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 usual course, that technical and scientific tests offer guidance only within limits and that once the article are in circulation and come to be described and known in common parlance then there is no difficulty for statutory classification under a particular entry. At para 31 of the report it was observed as under -
Commissioner Of Sales Tax U.P vs M/S. S. N. Brothers, Kanpur on 2 November, 1972
Pausing here for a moment, it may be observed that Tariff Item 50 makes no reference to the end use in contra-distinction to certain other items, to wit, Items 51 and 54, where the end use of the articles covered by these items is mentioned. This is another indication as to the irrelevancy of considering the end use of the company's product as done by the Superintendent and by the appellate authority. Reliance by the authority on dictionary meanings have been deplored by the Supreme Court in Sales-tax Commissioner, U.P. v. S.N. Bros. - AIR 1973 SC 78, where it was observed as under -
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Delhi Cloth And General Mills Company ... on 1 January, 1800
"Mr. Mehta urged the burden of proof even if it was on the Department was duly discharged by the Department inasmuch as the findings were based on standard text books and that the fact that the books were merely company in its affidavit in rejoinder. Mr. Mehta relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Anr. v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. [1977 E.L.T. J199 ; AIR 1963 SC 791] and on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Porrits and Spencer (Asia) Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. [1980 E.L.T. 679] where it was respectively held that the opinions of the Indian Standards Institute as expressed in the glossary of textile terms must be preferred to the opinions of authors and technical exports. It is difficult to see how those decisions can be of assistance to the respondents before me in view of the fact that neither the Superintendent nor the Appellate Collector nor the Revisional authority has relied on any opinion of the Indian Standards Institute. I do not see the implied admission alluded to by Mr. Mehta. It is futile to say that the books relied on by the Department are mere standard text books. They are not any the less what they actually are namely, highly technical books containing a wealth of technical information meant for technical people. It is reliance on such material by authorities that has consistently been frowned upon and condemned by the Supreme Court."
1