Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.36 seconds)Commissioner Of Central Excise,Bolpur vs M/S.Ratan Melting & Wire Industries on 14 October, 2008
The reference was necessitated in the backdrop
of a confusion created on account of the view expressed
by a five judge bench of the Supreme Court in para 11 of
Dhiren Chemical Industries Case, (2002) 2 SCC 127 which
states that "...regardless of the interpretation that we
have placed on the said phrase, if there are circulars
which have been issued by the Central Board of Excise
and Customs which place a different interpretation upon
Page 13 of 17
Downloaded on : Thu Mar 11 00:00:57 IST 2021
C/SCA/18157/2019 ORDER
the said phrase, that interpretation will be binding upon
the revenue."
Tata Teleservices Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs on 15 April, 2004
22. Besides, in the case of TATA Teleservices Ltd. Vs.
Commissioner of Customs, (2006) 1 SCC 746, the question
before the Supreme Court was whether the telephone LSP
340 imported would be entitled to the benefit of the
exemption granted by Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. dated
1.03.2002 to cellular telephones. The controversy arose
because CBEC issued a circular being Circular No. 57/2003
dated June 2003 which defined the phrase W.P.(C)
6345/2018 Page 22 of 25 "cellular phones" and clarified
that a telephone would not be considered as a cellular
phone, merely because it works on cellular technology.
The basic fact was that LSP 340 utilized cellular
technology and was mobile, although within a limited
range. Contrary views were taken by different High Courts
and, therefore, the matter came up in appeal before the
Supreme Court. The Court while deciding this question,
held as under:
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 39 in The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [Entire Act]
Section 46 in The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [Entire Act]
Section 54 in The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [Entire Act]
Section 77 in The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [Entire Act]
Section 168 in The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [Entire Act]
Kalyani Packaging Industry vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 6 May, 2004
In order to elucidate the position in this
respect, the five judge bench in Commissioner of Central
Excise, Bolpur vs. Ratan Melting and Wire Industries
(supra) referred to its earlier decision in Kalyani
Packaging Industry vs. Union of India (2004) 6 SCC 719
and observed that Para 11 of Dhiren Chemical Industries
(supra) was rightly clarified therein. In this background,
the Court held in paragraph 7 as under :
1