Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.02 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
C.I.T. Andhra Pradesh vs M/S Taj Mahal Hotel, Secunderabad on 12 August, 1971
The interpretation of the notification for the grant of concessional duty under Notification 110/95 supports the case in Vivek Alloys in which Taj Hotels case is relied on. That can be relied upon in this case as to the interpretation of the meaning of the word plant in the absence of a decision under the Customs Act. The Policy is in favour of the appellant. Classification is not involved. There is no ambiguity to apply the doctrine as contended by the JDR and it is not helpful in this case. There is no dispute about the installation of the marble slabs in the hotel industry of the appellant.
Section 25 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Vivek Alloys Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 6 August, 1997
The discussion in paragraph 3 at page 19 by the ld. Technical Member of the latest case law 1998 (24) RLT 427 in the case of Vivek Alloy Co. v. C.C.E. under paragraph 4 supports the case of the appellant in paragraph 10 to 15 of the order. In 1998 (97) E.L.T. 159 it is mainly based on the licence of DGFT and there was no issue regarding the plant. The EXIM Policy is treated only as a adjunct, and the notification is relied on by the appellant in the main.
The Customs Tariff Act, 1975
Section 10 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Sheshank Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 November, 1996
In this case the question of furnishing certificate does not arise, (g) 1994 (71) E.L.T. 32 in the case of Litho Press v. C.C. deals with the certificate of DGTD to be given due weight and not to be brushed aside lightly also does not apply to the instant case on hand as there is no certificate, involved in this case, (h) 1992 (57) E.L.I. 563 Asiatic Oxygen is relied on this case, (i) 1996 (88) E.L.T. 626 in the case of Shashank Sea Foods v. U.O.I, it is held that the customs authorities can also conduct investigation over breach of a condition of an exemption Notification No. 116/88 vide paragraph 9 & 10. There is no dispute in this regard in the instant case. This ruling is relied on in paragraph 6 of the order by the ld. Judicial Member and in paragraph 7, the Supreme Court judgment in Taj Mahal Hotel is also considered.
Article 77 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Commissioner Of Cus. vs Bharat Starch Industries Ltd. on 7 July, 1997
In my view, the ratio of the Tribunal's decision in Commissioner v. Bharat Starch Industry, an unreported decision, has no direct bearing on the issue of whether the goods in question are a plant or not. The Tribunal said in that decision that, in applying a notification, what is to be considered is the definition of a term in the notification and not the definition in the import policy. The appellant before us does not base its claim in the definition of the policy alone; that is pressed into service as a adjunct. What is claimed is that the goods are plant within the meaning of the Customs notification.