Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)
Nutrine Confectionary Company Ltd. vs Assistant Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 4 March, 1983
cites
Parry Confectinery Ltd., Madras vs Government Of India And Ors. on 1 January, 1800
In fact, the Madras High Court in M/s. Parry Confectionary Limited, Madras vs. The Government of India referred to the technical opinion given by the ISI on 11-10-74 and the opinion of the Central Food Technological Institute, Mysore dated 6-2-74 which also bring about the above differences prominently.
Union Of India vs Delhi Cloth & General Mills on 12 October, 1962
In fact the Supreme Court pointed out in the case in Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills that the opinion of the Indian Standards Institution is preferable to other opinions. In that case their Lordships were considering the meaning of the words 'refined oil' in the context of the central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. We shall therefore initially refer to the booklets of the ISI.
Annapurna Biscuit Manufacturing Co., ... vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P., ... on 28 July, 1981
20. There is a judgment of the Supreme court which is directly in point where Their Lordships rejected the English usage in preference to the Indian usage. That is the case in Annapurna Biscuit Manufacturing Company, Kanpur v. S. T. Commissioner, U.P. (7) . There it was contended that the words 'cooked food' included 'biscuits' within their amplitude. Rejecting the said construction, Justice E. S. Venkatramaiah laid down :
V.V. Iyer Of Bombay vs Jasjit Singh, Collector Of Customs And ... on 22 September, 1972
23. The last submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents was that no interference was called for in Writ Proceedings against the orders of the Excise authorities unless it was proved that the views taken by the latter were perverse or unreasonable. For that proposition, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in V. V. Iyer v. Jasjit Singh (8) .
Union Of India vs Tarachand Gupta & Bros on 28 January, 1971
(vide Union of India v. Tarachand Gupta and Brothers (9) ).
The Central Excise Act, 1944
State Of Tamil Nadu vs Pyare Lal Malhotra Etc on 19 January, 1976
It may be noted that the Division Bench relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Tamilnadu v. Pyare Lal Malhotra which constructed the words 'that is to say' as meaning an exhaustive list of taxable goods.
1