Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.39 seconds)
Union Of India & Anr. vs Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd on 28 August, 2018 cites

Commnr. Of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs M/S. Dilip Kumar And Company on 30 July, 2018

31. We are conscious and aware that pronouncements or decisions by the AAR should not be interfered with as the scope of judicial review is narrow and limited. However, in the context of the present case and after referring to the reasoning given by the AAR, we feel that the language of the notification under the heading ‗description of goods' i.e. "electrical machines with translation or dictionary functions" has been erroneously rejected, holding that the dictionary and translation function may not be the main feature of the electrical machine. There has been failure to consider the legal ratio which mandates strict interpretation of exemption notification and also the legal position that the word ‗with' is a chameleon which changes colour in the context in which it is used. The word "with" need not have a static and have a universal interpretation and the construction put forward by the Revenue was creditable and worthy of acceptance. The interpretation by the AAR would falter when we apply the ratio in Hari Chand Shri Gopal (supra) and M/s Dilip Kumar and Company (supra) in the context of the present exemption notification. Accordingly, the writ petition is to be allowed holding that Kindle devices are not covered under the exemption notification as they were/are not "electrical machines with translation or dictionary functions".
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 2183 - N V Ramana - Full Document

Novopan India Ltd., Hyderabad vs Collector Of Central Excise And ... on 14 September, 1994

30. In Novopan India Ltd. [1994 Supp (3) SCC 606] this Court held that a person, invoking an exception or exemption provisions, to relieve him of tax liability must establish clearly that he is covered by the said provisions and, in case of doubt or ambiguity, the benefit of it must go to the State. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Hansraj Gordhandas v. CCE and Customs [AIR 1970 SC 755 : (1969) 2 SCR 253] held that (Novopan India Ltd. case [1994 Supp (3) SCC 606] , SCC p. 614, para 16) ―16. ... such a notification has to be interpreted in the light of the words employed by it and not on any other basis. This was so held in the context of the principle that in a taxing statute, there is no room for any intendment, that regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words and that the matter should be governed wholly by the language of the notification i.e. by the plain terms of the exemption.‖
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 289 - Full Document

Union Of India And Ors vs M/S. Wood Papers Ltd. And Anr on 24 April, 1990

―16. We are, however, of the opinion that, on principle, the decision of this Court in Mangalore Chemicals [Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd. v. CCT, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 21] and in Union of India v. Wood Papers Ltd. [Union of India v. Wood Papers Ltd., (1990) 4 SCC 256 : 1990 SCC (Tax) 422] , referred to therein--represents the correct view of law. The W.P. (C) No. 4826/2017 Page 16 of 27 principle that in case of ambiguity, a taxing statute should be construed in favour of the assessee--assuming that the said principle is good and sound--does not apply to the construction of an exception or an exempting provision; they have to be construed strictly. A person invoking an exception or an exemption provision to relieve him of the tax liability must establish clearly that he is covered by the said provision. In case of doubt or ambiguity, benefit of it must go to the State.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 286 - R M Sahai - Full Document

Shri Hansraj Bhasani vs Cce, Delhi Ii on 8 November, 2016

Once, of course, the provision is found applicable to him, full effect must be given to it. As observed by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Hansraj Gordhandas v. CCE and Customs [Hansraj Gordhandas v. CCE and Customs, AIR 1970 SC 755 : (1969) 2 SCR 253] , that such a notification has to be interpreted in the light of the words employed by it and not on any other basis. This was so held in the context of the principle that in a taxing statute, there is no room for any intendment, that regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words and that the matter should be governed wholly by the language of the notification i.e. by the plain terms of the exemption.‖
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 1 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Commnr. Of Central Excise, New Delhi vs M/S. Hari Chand Shri Gopal & Ors on 18 November, 2010

31. We are conscious and aware that pronouncements or decisions by the AAR should not be interfered with as the scope of judicial review is narrow and limited. However, in the context of the present case and after referring to the reasoning given by the AAR, we feel that the language of the notification under the heading ‗description of goods' i.e. "electrical machines with translation or dictionary functions" has been erroneously rejected, holding that the dictionary and translation function may not be the main feature of the electrical machine. There has been failure to consider the legal ratio which mandates strict interpretation of exemption notification and also the legal position that the word ‗with' is a chameleon which changes colour in the context in which it is used. The word "with" need not have a static and have a universal interpretation and the construction put forward by the Revenue was creditable and worthy of acceptance. The interpretation by the AAR would falter when we apply the ratio in Hari Chand Shri Gopal (supra) and M/s Dilip Kumar and Company (supra) in the context of the present exemption notification. Accordingly, the writ petition is to be allowed holding that Kindle devices are not covered under the exemption notification as they were/are not "electrical machines with translation or dictionary functions".
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 282 - Full Document
1   2 Next