Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (1.04 seconds)
The Ahmedabad Manufacturing And Calico ... vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 29 October, 1982
cites
Section 3 in Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Atic Industries Ltd vs H.H. Dave, Asstt. Collector Of Central ... on 14 February, 1975
We, therefore, do not think that the petitioners are justified in claiming deduction in respect of the aforesaid categories of expenses on the basis of Voltas' case or Atic Industries case. The very bottom of their case thus disappears.
Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950
Dalbir Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab on 4 May, 1979
In Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab A.I.R 1979 Supreme Court 1384 at pages 1390 and 1391 Sen J. speaking for the Supreme Court has observed as under:
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Madras Rubber Factory vs Assistant Collector Of Central Excise ... on 25 August, 1978
In 1979 Cen-Cus 337D Madras Rubber Factory Madras v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise 1978 E.L.T. (J. 595) the question which arose before the Kerala High Court was in the context of the amended Section 4. The Kerala High Court has taken the view that post manufacturing expenses cannot be excluded.
H. H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jiwaji ... vs Union Of India on 15 December, 1970
(emphasis added)
The Supreme Court has also uttered a warning to the effect that the greatest possible care must be taken to relate the observations of a Judge to the precise issue before him and confine such observations even though expressed in broad terms in the general compass of the questions before him see Madhav Rao Scindia v. Union of India and A.D.M. Jabalpur v. V.S. Sukla A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1307 at p. 1378. It is therefore, evident that the decision of the Supreme Court is only an authority for what it actually decides and the observations made in the judgment should be restricted to the context in which they are made after relating the observations to the precise issue before the court taking care to interpret the observations in the context of the question before the court even though the same are expressed in broad terms. Since the Supreme Court itself has administered the warning and has indicated in no uncertain terms that what is binding is an actual ratio decidendi of the decision culled out in the context of the facts of the case and the principles of law applied in the case in question, it is unnecessary to refer to any other authority.
American Universal Electric (India) ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 20 November, 1976
In American Universal Electric (India) Ltd v. Union of India 1979 E.L.T. (J. 125), decided on November 20, 1976 reliance has in terms been placed on the decision rendered by Division Bench of this High Court in the first Golden Tobacco case 1977/E.L.T. J. 130. The reasoning which found favour with the learned judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court is reflected in paragraph 12 of the report which for the sake of preciseness may be quoted:
The Vacuum Oil Company vs The Secretary Of State For India on 21 April, 1932
Support was sought from the decision of the ECR C 1 PC Privy Council In Vacuum Oil Co. v. Secretary of State for India in Council A.I.R. 1932 P.C. 168. which was relied upon by the Supreme Court, for the purpose of ascertaining the real meaning of the term 'wholesale cash price' and it has been clarified that it was in the context of the aforesaid facts and circumstances that the Supreme Court had concluded that only deduction that is permissible to be made from the wholesale cash price for the purpose of levy of excise duty is the trade discount and the amount of duty paid at the time of removal of the article.