Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.64 seconds)

Vee Nissan Electronics vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Mumbai on 18 December, 2003

13. When the government order does not make any distinction, the respondents sub-planted the words to deny the benefits. The contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that use of word, namely, genset in the notification will https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/18 W.P. No.19316 of 2013 apply only to the small captive generators using diesel gensets, the said stand is also taken by him in the counter. It is relevant to note that the word 'namely', used in the notification is only illustrative and cannot be construed that the same imposes any specific limitation or restrictions, in this regard, the Hon-ble Apex Court in the case reported in (2004) 10 SCC 190 [Vee Nissan Electronics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai], in Paragraph No.3 it is held as follows:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1