Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.31 seconds)The Central Excise Act, 1944
The Customs Act, 1962
N.B. Sanjana, Assistant Collector Of ... vs Elphinstone Spinning & Weaving Mills ... on 22 January, 1971
In view of the two Notifications mentioned above we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that "man-made fibre is synonymous with "staple fibre" and, therefore, the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad versus Priyadarshini Spinning Mills Ltd. applies squarely to these appeals.
Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Customs Tariff Act, 1975
Collector Of Central Excise vs Priyadarshini Spg. Mills Ltd. on 30 April, 1990
In these premises the decision in Priyadarshini case clearly lays down that the yarn containing non-cellulosic waste can only fall for classification under TI 18 III(i) as it lacked homogeneity. The assessees herein do not cut synthetic staple fibres--they do not have any machinery for cutting nor do they hold a licence to cut staple fibres and the material used is also not synthetic staple fibres.
Asapcs (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 8 May, 1984
This was so laid down by the Tribunal in the case of Asapcs India P. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise. Calcutta . Therefore, the order of the Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) cannot be sustained as the authorities took into consideration extraneous factors for coming to a decision which did not form part of the show cause notice. The Department has not discharged its burden to prove that yarn manufactured by the assessees contained man-made fibres of non-cellulosic origin and, therefore, we have no alternative but to hold that classification can only be under TI 18 III(i).
Lml Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise on 25 October, 1990
In the case of LML Ltd. versus Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur Order No. 78 to 80/90-D dated 8.2.1990 : 1991 (32) ECR 63 (Cegat SB-D) the same view has been echoed viz. that Notification should be read along with the Act and exemption Notification must be read as a whole in the context of the relevant provisions. In paragraph 14 of the order (supra) the Tribunal observed as follows:
K.P. Varghese vs The Income Tax Officer,Ernakulam, And ... on 4 September, 1981
The appellants have contended that the mother yarn cannot be held to be dutiable merely by virtue of Notification 47/85 dated 17.3.1985 since the exemption Notification cannot override the provisions of charging Section 3 of the CESA, 1944....As against this the learned DR has argued that the Notification and the provisions of the Act have to be read together and the Notification is a part of the Statute. Examining these contentions we find that in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise versus Parle Exports--, the Supreme Court has laid down the law in respect of the interpretation of a Notification....The Supreme Court noted the submissions made before it to the effect that how the Government understood the matter at the time of issue of the Notification is a relevant factor and is one which should be borne in mind in view of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in K.P. Verghese versus Income Tax Officer-- and observed that it is a well settled principle of interpretation that the Court in construing the Statute or Notification will give much weight to the interpretation put on it at the time of enactment or issue and by those who have to construe, execute and apply the said enactment. The Supreme Court thereafter observed that expressions in the schedule and in the Notification for expressions should be understood by the language employed therein keeping in mind the context in which the expression occur, and further observed that the Notification in that case was issued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules and should be read along with the Act and that the Notification most be read as a whole in the context of the relevant provisions. 'When a Notification is issued in accordance with the powers conferred by the Statute it has statutory force and validity and, therefore, the expression under the Notification is, as if it were contained in the Act itself.