Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (1.05 seconds)Section 74 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 37 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
The Customs Act, 1962
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd. vs The Union Of India, Joint Secretary To ... on 15 September, 2003
68. Thus, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held in Daimler
(supra) that the car had been used for the purpose for which it had been
imported and, therefore, it was put to 'use' under Section 74(2) of the Act. It
is noted that the Bombay High Court was considering the interpretation of the
term 'use' under Section 74 of the Act and not under Section 75 of the Act.
Nevertheless, as per the Bombay High Court, the term 'use' has to be
construed keeping in mind the ordinary meaning of the said term, the purpose
W.P.(C) 9461/2023 & connected matters Page 41 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:14.02.2025
16:04
for which the relevant good was imported as also the scheme under which the
said good was imported.
M/S. Millipore (India) Private ... vs Union Of India And Others on 24 May, 1999
In the above decision the Karnataka High Court noted that there is a
difference between display and demonstration. In the said case since the
machineries were operated, albeit, for a short time for demonstration and,
therefore, did not remain a new machinery. The Karnataka High Court being
conscious of the distinction between Section 74 and Section 75 of the Act held
that, in the facts of that case, refund would only be available under Section 74
(2) of the Act.
Director Of Entry Tax And Ors. vs Mahindra And Mahindra And Anr. on 2 May, 2001
71. The Customs Department has attempted to emphasise the observation
of the Supreme Court that it is of no consequence that the use of the said
machine was not for the purpose for which it was made. Accordingly, the
Customs Department has argued that irrespective of the purpose for which the
Petitioners have operated the exported mobile phones, the moment the said
mobile phones have been switched on and any function thereto has been
utilised, the same would constitute 'use' under the proviso to Rule 3(1) of the
Duty Drawback Rules. This argument cannot be sustained, in the opinion of
this Court, as the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahindra (supra) does
not support the stand of the Customs Department. It is settled law that
interpretation by the Courts of words and expressions under one statute cannot
W.P.(C) 9461/2023 & connected matters Page 44 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:14.02.2025
16:04
be relied upon as a guide for interpreting words and expressions in another
statute unless both the statutes are pari materia legislations or it is expressly
provided for in the statute under consideration.