Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.68 seconds)Collector Of Central Excise, Kanpur vs Krishna Carbon Paper Co on 16 September, 1988
vi) Therefore, the issue boils down to the interpretation of the expression used in the Notification, i.e. "goods required for the manufacture of...textile garments (including knitwear)". The machines imported are required for manufacturing of textile garments (including knitted garments) and the benefit of exemption is available to the appellants. There is no definition of "manufacturing" or the expression "goods required for the manufacture" either in the notification or in the customs tariff. In the absence of such definition, the meaning assigned to these words in common parlance should be taken into consideration. Reference to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United Offset Process Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Customs and in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Krishna Carbon Paper Co. was made in this regard.
Collector Of Central Excise, Jaipur ... vs Rajasthan State Chemical Works ... on 17 September, 1991
Standard Fireworks Industries, ... vs Collector Of Central Excise, Madurai on 17 February, 1987
Ceat Tyres Of India Limited vs Union Of India And Others on 1 January, 1800
4) Ceat Tyres of India Ltd. v. UOI reported in 1992 (62) ELT 517 Mumbai.
Indian Metals And Ferro Alloys Ltd. ... vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 22 November, 1990
5) Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bhubaneshwar, reported in 1995 (77) ELT 302 (T) : 1995 (57) ECR481 (T).
United Offset Process Pvt. Ltd vs Asstt. Collector Of Customs, Bombay And ... on 14 October, 1988
vi) Therefore, the issue boils down to the interpretation of the expression used in the Notification, i.e. "goods required for the manufacture of...textile garments (including knitwear)". The machines imported are required for manufacturing of textile garments (including knitted garments) and the benefit of exemption is available to the appellants. There is no definition of "manufacturing" or the expression "goods required for the manufacture" either in the notification or in the customs tariff. In the absence of such definition, the meaning assigned to these words in common parlance should be taken into consideration. Reference to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United Offset Process Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Customs and in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Krishna Carbon Paper Co. was made in this regard.
Section 25 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Rupa & Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs, Kolkata on 31 January, 2002
7) In the case of Rupa & Co. (Supra) the knitting machine was not under consideration but only machines for processing. Hence the Tribunal did not have occasion to give any ruling regarding the knitting machine. Hence no inference can be drawn from this decision that the production of garments will start only with fabric processing machines.