Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.17 seconds)Dunlop India Ltd vs Union Of India And Ors on 6 October, 1975
However, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dunlop India Ltd. v. UOI, reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1566 in interpreting meaning of works in a taxing statute the acceptation of a word by the trade and its popular meaning should commend itself to theauthorities.
Jamshri Ranjit Singhji Spg. And Wvg. ... vs C.C.E. on 15 July, 1994
Further in the case of Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur, reported in (1995) ECC 167 the Hon'ble Supreme Court while holding that blended yarn manaufactured by the assessee in which polypropylene fibre predominated was not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 322/77 which exempted polypropylene spun yarn, observed that since it was a case of exemption from duty there was no question of any liberal construction to extend the term and scope of the notification as such exemption notification must be strictly construed and the assessee should bring himself squarely within the ambit of the notification to which no extended meaning can be given to exempt the items by enlarging the scope of exemption granted by the notification.
Steel Authority Of India vs Collector Of Customs on 9 October, 1991
In view of the foregoing and following the ratio of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. (supra) I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
Advance Bricks Company vs Assessing Authority, Rohtak & Anr on 22 September, 1987
4. Ld. Sr. Advocate submitted that Block is a brick and that is how the item is understood in commercial and trade parlance. Ld. Sr. Advocate referred to the definition appearing in ISI 4041-1987 and also in the Concise Oxford Dictionary, which defines a "brick" as a small rectangular block and 'Block' has been defined as a 'Solid uneven material, a solid cube'. He also referred to the Customs Trade Public Notice dated 5-4-1979, which had stated that the Block is a brick and had held that the benefit of notification should be extended. Ld. Sr. Advocate also referred to the definition of the terms 'Brick' & 'Block' appearing at page 243, 245 of Encyclopaedia Britannica. He also relied on the affidavit filed by the party and on the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Advance Bricks Co. v. Assesssing Authority, Rohtak and Anr.-1987 SCC 650.
Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 17 March, 1993
Referring to these definitions, he submitted that the terms 'Bricks' and 'Blocks' have to be understood in the same sense. We have considered the submissions made by the ld. Sr. Advocate and noticed that the term 'Block' is a solid piece of hard material and a brick is a small usually rectangular block used in construction. There is force in this submission made by the ld. Sr. Advocate and also in the reasoning given by the ld. Collector, and the same is required to be accepted. Further, we notice that the Notification in question grant exemption to "refractory bricks of special shape or quality for use as component parts of industrial furnace falling under Heading 69.01/90 of the First Schedule of the Customs Act, 1975". As has been noted by the Id. Collector, there is no dispute with regard to the classification of this item under Heading 69.01/90 of the tariff. So long as this item is understood as a refractory brick to be used as a component parts of industrial furnace, then the benefit of the notification cannot be denied to the appellants. The only doubt raised by the Assistant Collector is that these blocks do not fall within the description of bricks of special shape or quality. This doubt has been made clear with the evidence produced by the importer, and the same having been accepted by the Id. Collector. We also notice that in the case of Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, as reported in 1993 (67) E.L.T. 542. The importer had imported "Electric Cast Refractories with Zinconia content 40% and above (Refracting bricks of Special shape for vise as component parts to Glass furnace). The Tribunal after detailed examination of this case and after due consideration of the entire evidence including the said IS1 specification has held that the said item is entitled to the benefit of the Notification in question. We notice that the entire literature produced by the importer in that case supports the present case also and there is no reason as to why we should not apply the ratio of this judgment to the present case. In that view of the matter, we hold that the Id. Collector had rightly granted the benefit of the notificatior to the impugned goods. There is no merit in the appeal and hence it is dismissed.
1