Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.68 seconds)Steel Authority Of India vs Collector Of Customs on 9 October, 1991
6.2 Perusal of Tribunal's orders in case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Collector of Customs -1989 (42) E.L.T. 89 (Tribunal) would, however, reveal that this may not always be so. In that case, a refund claim was filed contending that refractory bricks were eligible to exemption under Notification 242/76, dated 2-8-1976 on the ground that refractory bricks of special shape and quality are for use as component parts of industrial furnace. It was, however, held by Tribunal that the refractory bricks in question were meant for use in the steel teeming ladle and not for industrial furnace and as such were not eligible for the benefit of the notification. Tribunal held that teeming ladles are not incorporated into nor are these the integral part of furnace. Tribunal, therefore, held that refractory bricks as imported even of special shape and quality cannbt be considered as component parts of industrial furnace.
Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Amar Radio Cabinet Works on 7 February, 1968
In case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Amur Radio Cabinet Works -1968 STC Vol. XXII Page 63 - Bombay High Court made a distinction even between parts and spare parts. The Court observed "as a matter of plain language, the expression "spare parts" connotes a part which requires replacement in the ordinary course on account of wear and tear, and as an extra item for use in emergency. Mr. Banaji's argument seeks to equate the expression "spare parts" with the term "parts", and does not give to the expression "spare parts" the colour that is [lent] by the word "spare" with which it is associated in the entry.
Sujan Singh And Anr. vs The Appellate Assistant Commisoner, ... on 20 May, 1969
Again in the case of Sujan Singh and Anr. v. Appellate Commissioner of Sales Tax -1969 STC Vol. XXIV Page 504 - it was held by High Court of Delhi that "spare part" means "an extra part of a vehicle or machine kept for use in emergency or replacement."
Televista Electronics (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax on 1 April, 1992
In case of Televista Electronics (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax - 1992 STC Vol. 87 Page 410 - the Delhi High Court observed, "the fact that at different points of time the relevant entries, some time contained the expression "component parts" and some time "spare parts", and in the 1975 Act Entry No. 1 contains both, namely, "spare parts" as also "component parts" leads to the inevitable inference that these terms are not treated as interchangeable.
Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. vs Director Of Inspector, C.C.E. And Anr. on 8 May, 1997
The concept of component part entering into manufacture of a product was explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Star Paper Mills Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 1990 (76) STC Page 312. The Apex Court referred to the meaning given to word "Component" in Webster Comprehensive Dictionary where the word "component" inter alia means a constituent part. Dealing with the definition of "manufacture" thereafter, the Supreme Court observed that what has to be considered is whether in the manufacture of paper, paper core is used as a constituent part and is necessary to be used in "any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product", namely, paper in that case. Supreme Court held that paper core would come within the expression any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of manufactured product and would fall within the term component parts used in the Notification so far as manufacture of paper is concerned. The emphasis therefore was on use of component parts in manufacture.
Punjab Traders And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 18 September, 1990
9.4 In case of Punjab Traders and Ors. v. State of Punjab - AIR 1990 (SC) 2300 [Para 16] - the Hon'ble Apex Court refused even to adopt the understanding of the persons who dealt with the statute at the material time by holding:
C.I.T. Andhra Pradesh vs M/S Taj Mahal Hotel, Secunderabad on 12 August, 1971
10.2 Subsequently, however, during 1992-97 Policy was amended to give an artificial definition to the term spares by mentioning that Spares include-a component. This, however, was done only by an inclusive definition. Hon'ble Apex Court in case of CIT, A.P. v. Taj Mahal Hotel - AIR 1972 SC 168 held:
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
The Senior Electric Inspectorand ... vs Laxmi Narayan Chopra And Others on 16 August, 1961
9.3 Apex Court in case of J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills v. UOI -AIR 1988 SC 191 - relied upon the case of Senior Electrical Inspector (supra) in holding that maxim Contemporanea expositio is applicable to ancient statutes and not the modern statutes.