Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.25 seconds)The Central Excise Act, 1944
State Of Gujarat (Commissioner Of Sales ... vs M/S. Variety Body Builders on 26 April, 1976
34. The question regarding the nature of the transaction came to be examined by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Variety Body Builders [1976] 38 STC 176. In this decision the Supreme Court of India has pointed out that there is no standard formula by which one can distinguish a contract of sale from a contract for work and labour, and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Supreme Court has also pointed out that the abovesaid question is not always easy and had for all time vexed jurists all over. To quote the words of the Supreme Court, it has been said thus :
Delhi Cloth & General Mills Company Ltd. ... vs Rajasthan State Electricity Board & Anr on 12 March, 1986
In Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan [1980] 46 STC 256, the Supreme Court has said that ".......... if there is one principle, fairly well-settled, it is that the words or expressions must be construed in the sense in which they are understood in the trade, by the dealer and the consumer. It is they who are concerned with it, and it is the sense in which they understand it that constitutes the definitive index of the legislative intention when the statute was enacted".
Collector Of Central Excise, Bombay-I & ... vs Parle Exports (P) Ltd on 22 November, 1988
While dealing with the relevant rules under the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and certain notifications thereunder in Collector of Central Excise v. Parle Exports (P.) Ltd. [1989] 75 STC 105 (SC); (1988) 4 JT 454, the Supreme Court has said that "the words used in the provision, imposing taxes or granting exemption should be understood in the same way in which they are understood in ordinary parlance in the area in which the law is in force or by the people who ordinarily deal with them".
Collector Of Central Excise, Kanpur vs Krishna Carbon Paper Co on 16 September, 1988
In Collector of Central Excise v. Krishna Carbon Paper Co. [1989] 72 STC 280 (SC); AIR 1988 SC 2223, while speaking on the question of the interpretation of taxing statutes and words used thereunder, the Supreme Court has categorised the position by saying that, where the word has a scientific or technical meaning and also an ordinary meaning according to common parlance, it is in the latter sense that in a taxing statute the word must be held to have been used, unless contrary intention is clearly expressed by the Legislature.
Dy. Commissioner Of Sales Tax (Law), ... vs Coco Fibres on 4 December, 1990
In Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Coco Fibres [1991] 80 STC 249 (SC); AIR 1991 SC 378, it was pointed out on the basis of the principle of commercial parlance that coconut husk would be entirely different from coconut fibre and no one in the market would sell or supply husk when fibre was asked for.
Plasmac Machine Manufacturing Co. ... vs Collector Of Central Excise, Bombay on 27 November, 1990
In Plasmac Machine Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1992] 84 STC 107; AIR 1991 SC 999, in the context of the Central Excises and Salt Act of 1944, the Supreme Court has stated that resort should not be to scientific and technical meaning of the terms or expressions but it should be to their popular meaning. It is on this basis that the finding of the Technical Member of the Tribunal that tie bar nuts are not fastening nuts was held not to be tenable.
M/S. Tungabhadra Industries Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Officer, Kurnool on 18 October, 1960
17. Thus applying in the instant case also, the abovesaid principle of popular parlance it becomes clear that the dried chicory roots could not have been said to be tubers within the meaning of the abovesaid two entries. Anyhow, before reaching a final conclusion in this respect, reference shall have to be made to certain case law on which learned counsel Mr. Pathak has placed reliance. Firstly our attention has been drawn to the Supreme Court decision in Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1960] 11 STC 827. The question before the Supreme Court was in respect of rule 5(1)(k) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939. Under rule 18, deduction under clause (k) of sub-rule (1) of rule 5 was required to be given in respect of the ground-nut from which the ground-nut oil was manufactured. The question was as to whether the same principle would apply in respect of that quantity of the ground-nuts from which the hydrogenated oil, commonly known as vanaspati could have been obtained. While considering this question the Supreme Court has stated that while manufacturing the hydrogenated oil which is usually known as vanaspati, some procedure was required to be carried out for the removal of impurity by certain process and that the said process could have been said to be a process of refining. But merely because of this, the hydrogenated oil cannot be said not to be the ground-nut oil, and therefore, the quantity of ground-nuts which had the relation with the abovesaid hydrogenated oil would be the same.
State Of Tamil Nadu vs Pyare Lal Malhotra Etc on 19 January, 1976
The second decision on which Mr. Pathak has placed reliance is also the Supreme Court decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. Pyare Lal Malhotra [1976] 37 STC 319. The Supreme Court was considering certain entries in section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The question was as to whether certain steel articles like steel rounds, etc., can be taxed again even if the material out of which they were made, was already subjected to sales tax, once as iron and steel scrap. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court had taken the view that the sales tax law is intended to tax sales of different commercial commodities and as soon as a separate commercial commodity emerge or comes into existence they become separately taxable goods. While reaching to the abovesaid conclusion the Supreme Court has indeed stated as under :