Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.24 seconds)Section 125 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bombay Etc vs Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. Etc on 27 May, 1997
(ii) Notification No. 24/2019 Cus dated 06.07.2019 amending Sl. No
6A of Notification No. 57/2017-Cus. by introducing a 'proviso' only seeks
to remove the confusion which pertains to two Sl. Nos. of the same
notification and is only clarificatory in nature and will hence have
retrospective effect. The Appellant in this case agrees that the
amendment removes the exemption benefit for the impugned goods,
but only prospectively. *Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay & Ors. v.
Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. *AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 2523 /
(1997) 5 SCC 482++
The J. K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills ... vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors on 12 December, 1960
(iii) that there could not be an intention to exempt the same goods
differently on the same day. As held by the Apex Court, when the same
person gives two directions one covering a large number of matters in
general and another to only some of them, his intention is that the
latter directions should prevail as regards these while as regards all the
rest the earlier direction should have effect. *J.K. Cotton Spinning &
Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. vs State of U.P., *(1961) 3 SCR 185++
Rohit Pulp And Paper Mills Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, Baroda on 26 April, 1990
(iv) if the inexactitude of words used in a notification at times leads
toambiguity and makes it necessary to understand the legislative intent
in issuing these notifications, then it has to be done by looking at the
subject of legislation and object of the law. *M/s Rohit Pulp and Paper
Mills Ltd Vs Collector of Central Excise *1990 (47) ELT 491 (SC)++
R.K. Garg Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 20 October, 1981
(viii) that laws relating to economic activities must be viewed with
greater latitude and deference when compared to laws relating to civil
rights such as freedom of speech. This to our mind gains even greater
importance where persons including industry are guided to arrange
their affairs on the basis of the legal position as obtaining in Government
policy that is cemented through appropriate fiscal exemptions, a few of
which have become a matter of interpretational disputes as in the
impugned matter. *R.K. Garg vs Union of India, *(1981) 4 SCC 675++
9.19 From the issues and judgements detailed above, we find that
the appellant in the said cases have not led evidence on facts and
important points of law involved so as to prove their eligibility for the
exemption. These were not placed before the Coordinate Bench for
consideration nor was it independently perceived before arriving at a
conclusion on the points of the lis. The Bench thus had decided in
favour of the appellant based on the limited issues considered. The
decisions are hence felt not to be an authority on the eligibility of
microphones for exemption from duty as the decisions came to pass sub
silentio. The judgments are hencedistinguished."
The Commissioner Of Customs (Import vs M/S. Finesse Creation Inc on 25 August, 2009
The Hon'ble
Supreme Court again in Commissioner Vs Finesse Creation Inc. *2010 (255)
E.L.T. A120 (S.C.)+, dismissed the SLP filed by Commissioner of Customs
(Import) against the Judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Commissioner
Vs Finesse Creation Inc *2009 (248) E.L.T. 122 (Bom.)+.
Dunlop India Ltd vs Union Of India And Ors on 6 October, 1975
9.18 In Vivo Mobile India - I (supra) a Coordinate Bench of this
Tribunal examined a similar matter pertaining to exemption for
microphones used in cellular phones. The matter in the judgment on
merits was confined to exemption for cellular microphones under
Notification No. 57/2017-Cus. dated 30.06.2017. The discussions were
limited to microphones being part of a PCBA and hence being eligible
for exemption as per sl no 6A of the said notification. In the case of
Notification No. 50/2017-Cus. dated 30.06.2017, the matter was discussed
in the context of the eligibility of the appellant claiming the exemption at the
Appellate stage.
Atul Glass Industries (Pvt) Ltd. Etc vs Collector Of Central Excise, Etc on 10 July, 1986
How is the product identified by the
class or section of people dealing with or using the
product is also a test when the statute itself does not
contain any definition and commercial parlance
would assume importance when the goods are
marketable as was held in Atul Glass Industrial (Pvt.)
Ltd. v. CCE [1986 (3) SCC 480] and Indian
Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. Union of India [1985 (3)
SCC 284].
Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 May, 1985
How is the product identified by the
class or section of people dealing with or using the
product is also a test when the statute itself does not
contain any definition and commercial parlance
would assume importance when the goods are
marketable as was held in Atul Glass Industrial (Pvt.)
Ltd. v. CCE [1986 (3) SCC 480] and Indian
Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. Union of India [1985 (3)
SCC 284].