Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.36 seconds)Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
The Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003
M/S. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd vs Commissioner, Commercial Taxes & Ors on 29 April, 2008
In Reckit Benckiser(India) Ltd (Supra), the question that
was posed for the scrutiny of the Apex Court was whether mosquito
repellants and other items fell under Entry 44(5) of Schedule III to
the KVAT. Whereas, the appellant insisted on the aforesaid
classification, according to the Revenue, the products were traceable
to Entry No.66 which attracted an enhanced rate of duty. Interfering
with the decision of the jurisdictional High Court from which the
appeal had been preferred to it, the Apex Court underlined that
cases where HSN and Code number is indicated against a tariff item
mentioned in the Third Schedule of KVAT then, in terms of the Rules
of Interpretation one ought to abide by the same as adopted by
Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and thus interpret the entries in the said
Schedule not only in the light of the entries in the Custom Tariff
Act,1975, but also the judgments applicable thereto. Their Lordships
observed that KVAT was aligned with the Customs Tariff which, in
turn, was in Harmony with HSN and consequently its product in
question was required to be viewed in the context of HSN and Code
number and the judgmenst based thereon.
The Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003
The Companies Act, 1956
Collector Of Central Excise, Shillong vs Wood Craft Products Ltd on 20 March, 1995
20. That Explanatory Notes to the Harmonized System of
Nomenclature (HSN) were not only of persuasive value, but having
regard to the fact that the structure of the Central Excise Tariff is
based thereon were entitled to greater weightage was underlined
by the Apex Court in Collector of Customs, Bombay(Supra) in
which it quoted with approval its observations in Collector, Central
Excise, Shillong vs. Wood Crafts Products Limited [ 1995(77) E.L.T.
23] as follows :-
M/S.M.P.Agencies vs State Of Kerala on 6 April, 2009
94. This Court, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, is thus in
respectful disagreement with the observations and the conclusions
recorded in M/s M.P. Agencies(Supra). The impugned order dated
11.8.2010 when judged by the above touchtone is thus unsustainable
in aw and on facts. It is thus, quashed.