Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.44 seconds)Darshan Hosiery Works vs Union Of India on 11 April, 1980
It may be seen that Ayurvedic medicines were clearly excluded from scope of the said item. In 1975 an omnibus residuary Item No. 68 was inserted in the CET to cover all goods not elsewhere specified in Item Nos. 1 to 67 of the Schedule. The dispute arose whether the goods excluded from the other entries in the Schedule would fall within the residuary Item No. 68. This dispute reached the Gujarat High Court in the case of Darshan Hosiery Works v. Union of India -1980 (6) E.L.T. 390 (Guj.). The Court held that the expression "not elsewhere specified" in Item No. 68 meant the total omission or failure to specify goods in the Schedule either for the purpose of taxability or for the purpose of exemption from liability to duty. Therefore, once an article or goods is specified in any of the Tariff Items, 1 to 67, irrespective of the purpose for which they are specified, Item 68 does not come into play and does not render such goods liable to duty. Applying the ratio of the judgment it will be seen that since Ayurvedic medicines are specified in Item No. 14E-though for the purpose of exclusion, they would not fall under Item No. 68 CET. It was evidently to overcome the effect of the above judgment that an explanation was inserted in Item No. 68 CET by the Finance Bill, 1980, reading as follows :-
The Finance Act, 2018
Commissioner Of Excess Profits Tax, ... vs India United Mills Ltd. on 1 April, 1952
5. Responding to the above arguments, Shri Sunder Rajan referred to the Tribunal's decision in CCE Bombay v. India United Mills -1986 (24) E.L.T. 436 and submitted that mere endorsements of the words "duty paid under protest" on gate passes would not serve the purpose of saver of limitation. In the present case, the gate passes did not carry such endorsements.
Collector Of Central Excise vs India United Mills on 31 July, 1985
In the case of Collector v. India United Mills (supra), the gate passes bore the endorsements "duty paid under protest" but there were no reasons nor any letter to the Central Excise authority as to why the duty was being paid under protest. Nor were the debits in the PLA under protest. The respondents did not also raise any dispute about the rate of duty after receipt of the Superintendent's letter in this behalf. It appears that they agreed to the classification suggested by the Assistant Collector. It is on these facts and circumstances that the Tribunal held that the mere endorsements on Gate passes did not amount to payment of duty under protest. The facts and circumstances in the instant case are different. As we have seen, the respondents have been protesting against classification of the goods and their being called upon to pay duty on the subject goods under Item No. 68, CET. The cited decision is, therefore, of no application to the present case.
1