Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.23 seconds)The Customs Tariff Act, 1975
Palaniappa Chettiar And Co. And Ors. vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Moore ... on 25 November, 1957
14.One of us (GRSJ) followed Pachiappa Chettiar V. State of
Madras ((1963) 2 MLJ 71) in E.S.Mydeen and Company v. Designated
Officer WP(MD)No.18115 of 2021 while dealing with a
circular/notification issued under the Food Safety and Standards Act,
2006. Even though Pachiappa Chettiar was cited before the learned
Single Judge, it was not dealt with at all. Before us, the learned
Standing Counsel argued that E.S.Mydeen was rendered in connection
the Food Safety and Standards Act and that therefore, the learned
Single Judge did not deal with the same. We are unable to subscribe to
the aforesaid submission of the learned Standing Counsel. While
E.S.Mydeen arose under the Food Safety and Standards Act,
Pachiappa Chettiar arose under a taxing statute. The facts involved in
Pachiappa Chettiar and the facts obtaining in the present case are not
similar but identical. Pachiappa Chettiar is by a Division Bench. On the
authority of Pachiappa Chettiar, we hold that the product made by the
appellant is “unmanufactured tobacco” because it does not involve any
manufacturing activity.
State Of U.P. & Others vs M/S. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd on 3 March, 1977
9.It is well settled that mere availability of an alternative remedy of
appeal or revision, which the party invoking the jurisdiction of the high
court under Article 226 has not pursued, would not oust the jurisdiction
of the high court and render a writ petition “not maintainable”. Where the
controversy is a purely legal one and it does not involve disputed
questions of fact but only questions of law, then writ petition should not
be dismissed on the ground of the availability of an alternative remedy
(vide State of U.P. v. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd., (1977) 2 SCC 724).
M/S. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs The Excise And Taxation Officer Cum ... on 1 February, 2023
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd vs The Excise
and Taxation Office reported in 2023 (2) TMI 64 held that whether a
certain item falls within an entry in a sales tax statute, raises a pure
question of law and if investigation into facts is unnecessary, the high
court could entertain a writ petition in its discretion even though the
alternative remedy was not availed of.
Elson Machines (P) Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise on 15 November, 1988
When the matter comes up before us for consideration, it is our duty to
answer the question posed to us to the best of our lights. We, therefore,
unhesitatingly ignore the past conduct of the assessee. In fact, our
thought process is in consonance with what has been propounded by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is well settled that there is no estoppel in
law against a party in a taxation matter (vide Elson Machines Pvt Ltd
vs Collector of Central Excise 1988 (38) E.L.T. 571 (SC)). Even if the
assessee had made a wrong admission, that would not be conclusive of
a classification dispute. The department must apply its mind and justify
the classification it proposes to adopt.
Union Of India And Others vs Garware Nylons Ltd. Etc on 9 September, 1996
In Union of India and
Ors. v. Garware Nylons Limited and Ors (1996 (87) ELT 12(SC)), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nagpur vs Vicco Laboratories on 7 December, 2004
“39.There cannot be any dispute to the proposition of law as
noted by the High Court that the burden of proof as regards the
classification of any goods of importation is upon the
Revenue/Customs authority and the standard of proof in
proceedings under the Tariff Act is not "beyond reasonable
doubt". However, whether "preponderance of probability" can
be the appropriate test for classification under the Customs Act
would be required to be examined in the light of the "General
Rules for the interpretation of this Schedule" as provided in the
First Schedule - Import Tariff in Part 2 of the Tariff Act.”
In Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Vs. Vicco Laboratories
(2005) 4 SCC 17, the three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court reiterated that the the burden of proof that a product is classifiable
under a particular tariff head is on the revenue and it must be
discharged by proving that it is so understood by consumers of the
product or in common parlance. We, therefore, have no hesitation to
answer the second issue also in favor of the appellant.
Collector Of Central Excise, Shillong vs Wood Craft Products Ltd on 20 March, 1995
The Hon’ble Supreme Court followed an earlier ruling in CCE v. Wood
Craft Products Ltd., (1995) 3 SCC 454 in which it was held that to
resolve any dispute relating to tariff classification, a safe guide is the
internationally accepted nomenclature emerging from the HSN. Thus,
the case on hand passes muster when tested on the touchstone of the
Explanatory Notes to HSN.
Union Of India & Anr vs Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. & Anr on 6 May, 1997
We would also seek to reinforce our conclusion by referring to the
principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in UOI v. Delhi Cloth
and General Mills Co., Ltd., (1962) 10 TMI 1-SC. It was held therein as
follows :