Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.20 seconds)Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. vs Director Of Inspector, C.C.E. And Anr. on 8 May, 1997
Similarly, reliance
on Elora Paper Mills Ltd Vs CCE 1991 (56) ELT 489 is also
not in appellants favour as the interpretation being made by
them is to make the notifications nugatory.
Hansraj Gordhandas vs H. H. Dave, Assistant Collector Of ... on 27 September, 1968
11. Reliance on the judgments in the case of Hemraj
Gordhandas Vs H.H. Dave 1978(2) ETL (J350) and Speedway
Rubber Co. Vs CCE 2002(143) ELT 8(SC) are mis-placed. A
notification is to be read as a whole as held by various Courts.
The Customs Tariff Act, 1975
The Income Tax Act, 1961
M/S Speedways Rubber Factory vs Cce, Jallandhar on 6 April, 2017
falling under negative list and classified under Chapter 28 of the
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, therefore, the appellant is not entitled
for the benefit of exemption notification. To find that the product
which is manufactured by the appellant is industrial gas,
manufactured by way of atmospheric fraction, which specifically
covers at S.No. 16 of the schedule, therefore, it is to be seen that
whether the appellant is entitled for benefit under notification or not
that product qualifies at S.No. 16 of the schedule of notification or
S.No. 4 of the Annexure. S.No. 4 of the Annexure covers inorganic
16 E/60550-60551/2019
chemicals, although industrial gases are inorganic chemicals, but
there is a specific entry at S.No. 16 of the schedule which is the
appropriate classification of the said goods and the Hon‟ble Apex
Court in the case of Speedway Rubber Co. (supra) has observed that
as per Rule 3(a) of Interpretation Rules of Central Excise Tariff Act,
1985, the heading which provides most specific description shall be
preferred to the heading providing a more general description.
R.K.K.R. Steels Ltd. vs Cc on 24 July, 2006
Reliance on K.R. Steels Union Ltd Vs CC 2001(129) ELT
273(SC) is thus of no use to the appellants.
Peacock Industries Ltd. vs Cc (Export Promotion) Mumbai on 10 October, 2019
To support this, he relied on the
decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd vs.
CC, Mumbai - 2006 (202) ELT 561 (SC).
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Government Of Kerala vs Mother Superior Adoration Convent on 1 March, 2021
6.8 He also relied on the decisions of Hon‟ble Apex Court in the
cases of K.R. Steels Union Ltd vs. C.C. - 2001 (129) ELT 273 (SC)
and Govt. of Kerala vs. Mother Superior Adoration Convent - 2021
(376) ELT 242 (SC).