Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.55 seconds)
Steel Marketing Co. Of India And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 28 February, 2003 cites

Una Subbarao vs State Of Orissa And Anr. on 31 October, 1984

16. Keeping in view the law laid down in the aforesaid pronouncements, we have to decide the issue at hand. It may be that milk powder is a genus of which skimmed milk powder is a specie as contended by learned counsel for the respondents. However, determination in such cases cannot be on this basis alone. It is well known that milk powders may be of different kinds and skimmed milk powder would be a distinct product. Therefore, it could be given different treatment by the framers of Import Control Policy. That is precisely done here also. As noted above, in Section-1 of the Import Control Policy for the relevant year 1977-78, item No. 47, Annexure-II to part-B of Vol.II of the Policy, describes the item "Milk Powder". On the other hand Section-3 of Vol-I of the Import Control Policy which contains the list of canalised items it is "skimmed milk powder" which is a canalised item. Thus framers of the Policy have made distinction between milk powder and skimmed milk powder. Further, as submitted by Mr. Rawal, Item No. 333 of Annexure-III of Import Policy for the year 1978-79, containing banned items, stipulates "milk powder (all types). This also visualies that there would be so many types of milk powders. When the policy makers have thought of various kinds of milk powders and skimmed milk powder is treated as one such kind which is given different treatment in the Import Policy, effect thereto has to be given.
Orissa High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

The Mineral Development Ltd., Calcutta vs The Union Of India And Another on 31 August, 1960

11. Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel argued on behalf of the respondents. He did not dispute that instant case was covered by Import Policy of the year 1977-78. However, his submission was that in view of sub-para (c ) of para 106(1) (already extracted above) items appearing in Annexure-II to Part-B could be imported only by the license holder and not by any other person or the "actual user". In the instant case, the petitioners were admittedly not the license holders but were permitted by the license holder on the basis of Letter of Authority to import the items. Since milk powder was an item appearing in Annexure-II to Part-B, the petitioners could not have imported this item. In order to avoid rigor of this provision, the petitioners were trying to allege that milk powder is different from skimmed milk powder where as it was not so, since milk powder was genus and skimmed milk powder was only specie thereof. His submission was that a particular item can be in the list of actual user and sub-item thereof could be a canalised item and precisely that was done by putting skimmed milk powder in the list of canalised item and milk powder in the other list. He also referred to judgment of Supreme Court in the case of The Mineral Development Ltd. Vs. The Union of India and another .
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 14 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

M/S. Tungabhadra Industries Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Officer, Kurnool on 18 October, 1960

"It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the essential question that we have to decide is whether the goods sold differed in identity from the goods purchased. It was urged that merely because paddy was dehusked and rice produced, there was no change in the identity of the goods. Identity of goods is one of the essential elements to be borne in mind in deciding the nature of the transaction. It was so decided in M/s. Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Kurnool . In that case the question arising for decision was whether hydrogenated oil continued to be ground-nut oil. This Court held that the hydrogenated groundnut oil continued to be groundnut oil. In arriving at that conclusion this Court took into consideration that the essential nature of the goods had not changed after the groundnut oil had been subjected to Chemical process.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 134 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document
1