Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.31 seconds)The Customs Tariff Act, 1975
Section 4 in The Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
Bharat Forge & Press Industries (P) Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, Baroda, ... on 16 January, 1990
In terms of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd. (supra) and Bharat Forge & Press Industries (P) Ltd. (supra) cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, the department has clearly established that the sunglasses cannot be brought under Entry 125 of Schedule IV and, therefore, the same would fall in residuary item.
Atul Glass Industries (Pvt) Ltd. Etc vs Collector Of Central Excise, Etc on 10 July, 1986
Further, merely because sunglasses have been described as 'tinted spectacles' in a dictionary cannot be a reason enough to include the same in the entry 'spectacle'. The above aspect has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows: In Atul Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra) while dealing with 'glass mirror' it was held that glass mirror cannot be classified as 'glass-ware'.
Commnr.Of Central Excise,New Delhi vs M/S.Connaught Plaza Rest.(P)Ltd.N.D on 27 November, 2012
Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Connaught Plaza Restaurant (P) Ltd. : 2012 (286) ELT 321 after observing the rules of interpretation in para 15, reiterated the use of principle of common parlance as the standard for interpreting terms in taxing statute and finally after taking a bird's eye view of several decisions rendered by the Apex Court concluded that entries and items in taxing statutes must be construed in terms of their commercial or trade understanding, or according to their popular meaning. The relevant part of the said judgment may be noticed thus:-
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs M/S. Kores (India) Ltd on 18 October, 1976
In the said judgment, the fact that glass mirrors were classified by Indian Standard Institution as 'glass and glassware' was held to be a mere piece of evidence; in the case of State of U.P. v. Kores (India) Ltd. : AIR 1977 SC 132 it was held that 'carbon paper' cannot be classified as 'paper'; in Collector of Customs v. New Trade Links : 1996 (88) ELT 23 it was held that bulbs which are utilized in any specially designed scientific apparatus cannot be classified as 'electric bulb' and in Purewal Associates Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise : 1996 (87) ELT 321 it was held that items like 'lid screw, barrel axle screw, bridge screw and dial key screw' cannot be classified as 'screws'.
Collector Of Customs vs New Trade Links on 9 October, 1996
In the said judgment, the fact that glass mirrors were classified by Indian Standard Institution as 'glass and glassware' was held to be a mere piece of evidence; in the case of State of U.P. v. Kores (India) Ltd. : AIR 1977 SC 132 it was held that 'carbon paper' cannot be classified as 'paper'; in Collector of Customs v. New Trade Links : 1996 (88) ELT 23 it was held that bulbs which are utilized in any specially designed scientific apparatus cannot be classified as 'electric bulb' and in Purewal Associates Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise : 1996 (87) ELT 321 it was held that items like 'lid screw, barrel axle screw, bridge screw and dial key screw' cannot be classified as 'screws'.
Purewal Associates Ltd. Etc vs Collector Of Central Excise on 1 October, 1996
In the said judgment, the fact that glass mirrors were classified by Indian Standard Institution as 'glass and glassware' was held to be a mere piece of evidence; in the case of State of U.P. v. Kores (India) Ltd. : AIR 1977 SC 132 it was held that 'carbon paper' cannot be classified as 'paper'; in Collector of Customs v. New Trade Links : 1996 (88) ELT 23 it was held that bulbs which are utilized in any specially designed scientific apparatus cannot be classified as 'electric bulb' and in Purewal Associates Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise : 1996 (87) ELT 321 it was held that items like 'lid screw, barrel axle screw, bridge screw and dial key screw' cannot be classified as 'screws'.
Collector Of C. Ex. vs I.T.C. Ltd. on 22 September, 1987
From above, it is very clear that inclusion would be allowed only if genus is there. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that - but unless there is a genus which can be comprehended from the preceding words, there can be no question of invoking this rule. Nor can this rule have any application where the general words precede with specific words. Vide paragraph-6 of the decision in case of Asstt. Collector of C.Ex v/s Ramdev Tobacoo Company 1991 (51) ELT 631 (SC).