Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (1.31 seconds)
Collector Of Central Excise, Bombay-I & ... vs Parle Exports (P) Ltd on 22 November, 1988 cites

K.P. Varghese vs The Income Tax Officer,Ernakulam, And ... on 4 September, 1981

Our attention was drawn to a decision of the Government of India in Re: Asian Chemical Works, [1982] 10 ELT 609A where the Government of India opined that `Food flavours' and `food preparations, might improve taste or appearance of food products and/or food preparations, but by themselves could not be legitimately consumed directly or after processing such as cooking, dissolving, or boiling in water for human consumption independently. Mr. Singh submitted that in ordinary common and commercial parlance also the goods in question are not known as food products and/or food preparations as such, therefore, these are not to be treated as exempt under the notification. Mr. Singh submitted that when a person says "I have consumed food" he does not mean or says that he has consumed non-alcoholic beverage bases. Therefore, those goods cannot be understood as covered by the notification of exemption. It was submitted that how Government understood a matter at the time of the notification, is a relevant factor and that is a factor which one should bear in mind in view of the principles enunciated by this Court in K.P. Verghese v. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam & Anr., [1982] 1 SCR 629. It is a well- settled principle of interpretation that courts in construing a statute or notification will give much weight to the interpretation put up on it at the time of enactment or issue, and since by those who have to construe. execute and apply the said enactments.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 3460 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Orient Weaving Mills (P) Ltd vs The Union Of India on 28 February, 1962

How then should the courts proceed? The expressions in the Schedule and in the notification for exemption should be understood by the language employed therein bearing in mind the context in which the expressions occur. The words used in the provision, imposing taxes or granting exemption should be understood in the same way in which these are understood in ordinary parlance in the area in which the law is in force or by the people who ordinarily deal with them. It is, however, necessary to bear in mind certain principles. The notification in this case was issued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules and should be read along with the Act. The notification must be read as a whole in the context of the other relevant provisions. When a notification is issued in accordance with power conferred by the statute, it has statutory force and validity and, therefore, the exemption under the notification is, as if it were contained in the Act itself. See in this connection the PG NO 948 observations of this Court in Orient Weaving Mills (P) Ltd. v. The Union of India, [1962] Supp. 3 SCR 481.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 79 - B P Sinha - Full Document

Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr on 28 July, 1981

In Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., [1982] l SCR 129 this Court emphasised that the notification should not only be confined to its grammatical or ordinary parlance but it should also be construed in the light of the context. This Court reiterated that the expression should be construed in a manner in which similar expressions have been employed by those who framed relevant notification. The Court emphasised the need to derive the intent from a contextual scheme. In this case therefore, it is necessary to endeavour to find out the true intent of the expressions "food products and food preparations" having regard to the object and the purpose for which the exemption is granted bearing in mind the context and also taking note of the literal or common parlance meaning by those who deal with those goods, of course bearing in mind. that in case of doubt only it should be resolved in favour of the assessee or the dealer avoiding, however. an absurd meaning. Bearing the aforesaid principles in mind, in our opinion, the revenue is right that the nonalcoholic beverage bases in India cannot be treated or understood as new `nutritive material absorbed or taken into the body of an organism which serves for the purpose of growth, work or repair and for the maintenance of the vital process' and an average Indian will not treat non- alcoholic beverage bases as food products or food preparations in that light.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 56 - V D Tulzapurkar - Full Document

Collector Of Customs, Bombay vs Swastic Woollen (P) Ltd. & Ors on 10 August, 1988

Mr. Sorabjee submitted that the Tribunal has relied on the Bangalore Collectorate Trade Notice as referred hereinbefore, order of the Appellate Collector in the case of Bush Boake Allan (India) Limited, and Heading No. 21.07 of CCCN, Import Policy of the Government of India for 1981- 82 as well as the observations in Encyclopaedia Britannica, Volume 13 at pages 420-421. It was submitted that the said orders of the Tribunal had considered and taken into consideration all the relevant factors. The Tribunal has acted on the varied materials, and therefore, such decision of the Tribunal should not be altered or deviated from. Reliance was placed on the observations of this Court in Collector of Customs, Bombay v, Swastic Woollen (P) Ltd. and Ors., [1988] 37 ELT 474 at paragraph 9. The expression "food products" is not defined in the Act The product exemption includes `food and food preparations' and provides an inclusive definition of `food products' and 'food preparations'. But the correct and the appropriate meaning of the expressions covered in the said notification has to be found out.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 71 - S Mukharji - Full Document
1   2 Next