Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.19 seconds)Goods Agro Chemicals And Ors. vs Assistant Collector Of Customs on 19 August, 1986
In Coods Agro Chemicals (supra) the High Court remanded the matter to the customs authority to examine the liability of these goods to additional duty under tariff item 68. Therefore this judgment cannot help the respondents.
Collector Of Central Excise vs Aluminium Industries Ltd. on 2 June, 1987
6. The learned Advocate cited two judgments namely Collector of Central Excise v. Aluminium Industries and Delhi Modi Rubber Ltd. v. Union of India and argued that in respect of the scrap imported by the appellants there is no event of manufacture, that scrap and waste are not identifiable goods and have no specific description, that there is no transformation of the products into a new commodity having a distinct name, character and use and that whenever levy on such products is desired clear entries are provided in the tariff. No such entry was there at the relevant time, according to him.
Modi Rubber Ltd. vs Union Of India And Others on 6 August, 1982
6. The learned Advocate cited two judgments namely Collector of Central Excise v. Aluminium Industries and Delhi Modi Rubber Ltd. v. Union of India and argued that in respect of the scrap imported by the appellants there is no event of manufacture, that scrap and waste are not identifiable goods and have no specific description, that there is no transformation of the products into a new commodity having a distinct name, character and use and that whenever levy on such products is desired clear entries are provided in the tariff. No such entry was there at the relevant time, according to him.
Indian Granite Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise on 14 July, 1987
Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. And Anr. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 18 June, 1987
Garware Nylons Ltd. vs Union Of India And Others on 1 January, 1800
17. The respondents' argument that their goods consist only of junk from worn and damaged products does not help them in view of what was said earlier to the effect that the scrap being imported goods it is liable to duty. The six authorities cited by the learned advocate do not, therefore, help them. The judgments in Garware Nylons (supra) and Darshan Hosiery (supra) cited by the learned Advocate do not also help them for the same reason. The Board's circular and the opinion of the Ministry of Law are not statutory and are not binding. Anyway, they referred to central excise duty and what we are considering here is additional duty of customs.
Darshan Hosiery Works vs Union Of India on 11 April, 1980
17. The respondents' argument that their goods consist only of junk from worn and damaged products does not help them in view of what was said earlier to the effect that the scrap being imported goods it is liable to duty. The six authorities cited by the learned advocate do not, therefore, help them. The judgments in Garware Nylons (supra) and Darshan Hosiery (supra) cited by the learned Advocate do not also help them for the same reason. The Board's circular and the opinion of the Ministry of Law are not statutory and are not binding. Anyway, they referred to central excise duty and what we are considering here is additional duty of customs.
Union Of India & Ors vs Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd on 31 January, 1975
2. Union of India v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. 1978 ELT 439.
Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. And ... vs Union Of India And Others on 1 January, 1800
3. Bharat Commerce and Industries v. Union of India 1979 ELT 527 (para. 13).