Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.49 seconds)
Indian Duplicator Co. Ltd. vs Addl. Collector, Central Excise And ... on 20 April, 1988 cites

State Of Uttar Pradesh vs M/S. Kores (India) Ltd on 18 October, 1976

38. The matter came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kores (India) Limited . The Supreme Court took the view that the word "paper" in the common parlance or in the commercial sense means paper which is used for printing, writing or packing purposes and in that view of the matter carbon paper cannot be said to be paper.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 99 - J Singh - Full Document

Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P vs Masneill And Barry Ltd., Kanpur on 19 November, 1985

39. Reference was also made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax Uttar Pradesh v. Macneill and Barry Limited . There the question that came up for consideration was whether ammonia paper and ferro paper were paper and the Supreme Court held that ammonia paper and ferro paper cannot be regarded as paper in the popular sense of the term since paper is used for printing or writing or for packing while ammonia paper and ferro paper are not employed for any of the purposes and subjected to any of the processes for which a paper, as commonly understood, is generally used.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 34 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Union Carbide India Limited vs Union Of India And Ors on 4 April, 1986

40. Dr. Pal also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union Carbide, India Ltd. v. Union of India . In the said decision it was held that aluminium cars produced and subsequently developed into completed component for being employed as flash light cases, could not be treated as excisable goods, since aluminium cans prepared by the manufacturer, are employed entirely by it in the manufacture of flash light and are not sold as aluminium cans in the market.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 130 - R S Pathak - Full Document
1