Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (2.20 seconds)Section 3 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Collector Of Central Excise, Bombay-I & ... vs Parle Exports (P) Ltd on 22 November, 1988
In the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bombay and Anr. v. Parle Exports (P) Ltd. (1989 U.P.T.C. 173), one of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for interpretation of a notification issued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules has been held to be that the notification must be read as a whole in the context of the other relevant provisions. If this principle is borne in mind then what I have stated above in the immediately preceding paragraph according to the tradition of our law, primacy is to be given to the text in which the intention of the law giver has been expressed. In putting the said interpretation to the entry in dispute in the manner in which I have done, certainly this Court is not legislating nor it is the function of the Court to legislate also. But no such interpretation can be put as it is either devoid of or is tern of its context. Having regard to the above context in which the entry in dispute finds place, in my opinion, the said entry does and has to take colour from Sub-clauses (1) and (2) of the said entry. Sub-clause (3) of the said entry cannot, in my opinion, be disassociated in any manner and be read seperately from Sub-clauses (1) and (2) of the said entry. Thus Clause (3) of the said entry cannot be read in isolation as it is inlcgrately connected with parts of such machineries as are referred to under Items (1) and (2) of the said entry. In view of what I have demonstrated above and having regard to the principle that the said entry has to be read as a whole and the language used in the entry right up from its heading till last, it would be in consonance with the spirit and the reason of law to hold that only such parts of refrigerator and air-conditioning appliances and machineries as are ordinarily sold or offered for sale attracted duty under Sub-clause (3) of the said entry and not otherwise. This conclusion of mine also finds support for a variety of other reasons which I will hereinafter refer.
Mother India Refrigeration Industries ... vs Superintendent Of Central Excise And ... on 24 November, 1978
17. Lastly, I find that sitting singly I am also bound by the aforesaid decision rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mother India Refrigeration Industries P. Ltd. (supra).
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Blue Star Ltd. vs Union Of India And Another on 1 January, 1800
11. The aforesaid Tariff Entry No. 29-A. has also been interpreted by the Bombay High Court in the case of Blue Star Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. 1980 (Vol. 6) E.L.T. 280. In this case the petitioner-Company carried on business, inter alia, of manufacturing Walk-in-Coolers which are used for preservation of food, medicines and other perishable articles. These Walk-in-Coolers comprised of various component parts such as cooling coils, blower meters, condensing units, controls, condensers, thermostat, over-load protection thermal relay and panels. In addition, Walk-in-Coolers ancillary equipments such as ducting, copper tubing, wiring and piping are also necessitated. None of the parts of the Walk-in-Coolers can work independently as a cooling machine unless all, these parts are installed and assembled together. The distance between Walk-in-Coolers and condensing units varies according to the requirements and specifications of each individual customer, the variation being as much as 50 feet or more. The question arose whether these Walk-in-Coolers are liable to excise duty. It was held that the said Walk-in-Coolers were not ready assembled units and that although major components and parts might be brought from the market directly to the site where erection and installation work is done and where for the first time the assembled belt is put in a running condition but such Walk-in-Coolers being not a ready assembled unit, no duty is attracted on the same under Tariff Item No. 29-A of the Central Excise Tariff.
Anil Ice Factory And Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 31 August, 1982
I also, with profound respect and for the reason stated above, find myself unable to agree with the reasoning contained in the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Anil Ice Factory and another (supra). Thus it has to be held that the petitioners are not liable to pay any excise duty on the items in dispute.
Calicut Refrigeration Co. vs Collector Of Customs And Central Excise ... on 14 December, 1981
12. This Item No. 29-A of the Central Excise Tariff also came up for consideration before the Kerala High Court in the case of Calicut Refrigeration Co. v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise Cochin and Ors. (1982 E.L.T. 106). In this case the asses-see had assembled ice cream combination cooler at the premises of the buyer out of necessary components purchased by the petitioner in the market. It was held that Item 29-A of the Central Excise Tariff has no application to anything other than what is ordinarily sold or offered for sale as a ready assembled unit.
Ravi Dughdhalaya vs Collector Of Customs And Central Excise on 25 January, 1984
A reference to this case finds place in the 5th Re-Print Edition of Central Excise Law Guide by R.K. Jain at page 415 and also in the decision of the Central Excise Tribunal in the case of Ravi Dughdhalaya, Ahmedabad v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise. Bom. 1984 (17) E.L.T. 125 -127)
1