Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)
Haryana Briquettes Industries vs State Of Haryana And Anr. on 8 July, 1986 cites

Khanna Coke Industries And Anr. vs The Assistant Commissioner ... on 18 May, 1978

This product is always treated as fuel corresponding to coke. In common parlance coal briquettes are always known as fuel. In this view of the matter, there can hardly be any escape from the conclusion that the coal briquettes being a preparation from coal-dust are covered by the definition as given in item (ia) of Section 14 of the Central Act. This view of ours finds full support from the Judgment in Khanna Coke Industries case 1978 Tax LR 2129 (All.), wherein on consideration of exactly a similar point, it has been observed thus :
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 7 - R M Sahai - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial ... vs B.R. Kuppuswami Chetty on 7 November, 1979

11. At this stage, I may refer to a Judgment of the Madras High Court in Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras Division v. B.R. Kuppuswami Chetty [1980] 45 STC 308. In that case, the assessee was a firm dealing in leco, firewood and charcoal. There was a dispute as to the classification of leco. According to the assessee, leco being carbonised lignite briquette was coal which is declared as goods of special importance in inter-State trade and commerce under Section 14(i) of the Central Act. If leco is taken as declared goods, then the assessee's sale would be second sales which are not taxable. The assessing authority declined to grant this exemption and the Appellate. Assistant Commissioner confirmed the assessment. The Tribunal, after going elaborately into the question of manufacture of lignite briquettes and also other aspects of the matter, came to the conclusion that leco was declared goods under Section 14(i) of the Central Act. In fact, the Tribunal held that leco was only lignite which is a variety of coal and which was liable to be taxed only on first sale. The question that arose for consideration was whether leco is coal or charcoal. After making reference to the Act and the definitions in various dictionaries, the learned Judges disposed of the matter thus :
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner (Sales Tax) vs R.A. Akbar Alikhan And Abdul Ruheem And ... on 25 February, 1970

Reference was made to a decision of this court in Deputy Commissioner (Sales Tax), Pondicherry v. Akbar Alikhan and Abdul Ruheem & Co. [1971] 27 STC 167. In that case exemption was granted under item 18 of the Third Schedule from tax on products such as firewood and charcoal. The question was whether leco could be classified as charcoal so as to be eligible for the exemption. At page 169, the learned Judges pointed out:
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1