Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 40 (0.31 seconds)The Central Excise Act, 1944
Section 2 in The Police Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
Union Of India & Anr vs Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. & Anr on 6 May, 1997
“On a careful consideration, it is seen that the
Revenue has not produced any evidence of trade
parlance and understanding in the market that this
activity of cutting and routing i.e., cutting the
aluminium of ACP would bring into existence the new
product as known in the market. The Apex Court in
the case of UOI Vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co
Ltd as reported in 1977 (1) ELT J199 (SC) has clearly
laid down that manufacture means bringing into
existence known the market and not merely
producing some change in a substance.
Finance Act, 1999
Section 130 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 130E in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 83 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Union Of India & Ors. Etc vs J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. Etc on 9 December, 1997
28. This court in Union of India v. J.G. Glass
Industries Ltd. [(1999) 114 STC 387 (SC); (1998) 2
SCC 32; 1997 SCC OnLine SC 22.] established a two-
Commissioner Of Service Tax Delhi vs M/S. Dlf Golf Resorts Ltd. on 4 January, 2018
52. It would be worthwhile to also refer to the observations made by
the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Commr., S. T. v. DLF Golf
Resorts Ltd., reported in 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 1529. The
Court highlighted that the amendment being clarificatory was
acknowledged by the Department of Revenue in a circular. The
relevant observations read thus:-