Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.51 seconds)
Guest Keen Williams Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 19 February, 1987 cites

East India Commerclal Co., Ltd. ... vs The Collector Of Customs, Calcutta on 4 May, 1962

14. Referring to the order of the Tribunal in the case -of M/s. Zunesh India Enterprises (supra), Shri Gopinath submitted that, in that appeal, the question was whether the imported goods could be considered as a 'nut-making machine' when threading was not done. The Tribunal held, in view of the evidence produced, that even if there was no threading, the imported machine could be called a 'nut making machine'. Therefore, according to him, the ratio of the judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Referring to the Government of India decision cited by the learned Counsel for the appellants, Shri Gopinath submitted that this decision can have only a persuasive value and is not binding on the Tribunal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 517 - A K Sarkar - Full Document

K.C. P. Employees' Association, Madras vs Management Of K. C. P. Ltd., Madras on 24 January, 1978

In this context, we have taken note of the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of K. Mohan & Co., Madras v. C.C. Madras'(supra). We note that the Tribunal therein considered whether an automatic cloth-cutting machine is covered by a certain notification and held that there was a fallacy in the view that because a certain amount of manual effort was required in cutting the garments, to appropriate pattern; the machine was not automatic. The Tribunal, in coming to the conclusion, took note that the concerned notification contemplated 'automatic' in respect of the process of cutting cloth. In the present notification, there is no such stipulation and this is an entirely different machine.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 84 - V R Iyer - Full Document
1