Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.25 seconds)
Modi Xerox Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 12 December, 1997 cites

Koron Business Systems Ltd. vs Union Of India on 10 September, 1990

16. As already briefly referred to above, the principles as contained in the general rules are for the classification of the goods imported. Rule 1 of the general rules provides that for legal purposes classification of the goods shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relevant section or chapter notes. It is only when such headings or notes do not help in determination of the classification that the provisions of the general rules will apply. It is thus clear that the terms of the headings and the relevant section and chapter notes are paramount. They are the first consideration in determining the classification. If the goods are clearly classifiable in terms of the heading read with section and chapter notes then the scope of the heading could not be extended to include the goods which otherwise might have been included by reason of the general rules. There is no dispute that the goods imported were parts and it was only by reason of the operation of the general rules that it was claimed that the description in the exemption notification should be extended to include the goods imported. We find that Section Note 2 of Section XVI specifically refer to the classification of the parts. Section Note 2 of Section XVI is extracted below:
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Guest Keen Williams Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 19 February, 1987

In the case of Guest Keen Williams Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta [1987 (29) E.L.T. 68 (Tribunal)] it had been observed that the Section Notes and the rules of interpretation are explicitly intended to be for the interpretation of the Tariff and its various headings. It would not be proper to apply those notes and rules to the interpretation of the notification.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 6 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Collector Of Customs vs Mitsuny Electronic Works on 13 June, 1984

In the case of Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. Mitsuny Electronic Work [1987 (30) E.L.T. 345 (Calcutta)], it was alleged by the Customs that the articles imported were complete Colour Television sets in ready-to-assemble condition. The importers had contended that they could import parts and accessories even if when put together they could make a complete television set. The Calcutta High Court observed that the importers might have purchased all the articles but that could not be a ground for withholding the goods alleging that complete Television sets had been imported.
Calcutta High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 21 - M M Dutt - Full Document

Khandelwal Metal & Engineering Works ... vs Union Of India And Others on 11 June, 1985

44. I have already held that the goods would have to be classified under the appropriate heading first and then only the question of exemption is to be considered. The judgments relied upon by the Appellants, in a nutshell, refer to this method only. Even in the Khandelwal's case, it was the department who argued that the Rules of Interpretation will apply to an exemption notification, when the importers contended to the contrary. Since I am following the method of classification of the goods first, under the CTA and then application of a notification to the said classified goods. I do not intend to discuss any of the judgments, of the Hon. CEGAT, Hon. High Court or Hon. Supreme Court, relied upon in this context, by the Appellants.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 180 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document
1   2 3 Next