Dunlop India Limited v. Union of India and Ors.

Commissioner of Customs (Import) vs. M/S Welkin Foods

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

…icle at the time of import is the crucial factor for classifying the product. Therefore, the end use of a product does not determine its classification for customs duty purposes. Reliance is placed on Dunlop India Ltd vs Union of India, reported in (1976) 2 SCC 241, Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd vs Union of India & Ors, reported in (1985) 3 SCC 284, Shantilal Khushaldass & Bros. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. Assistant Collector of Customs, Goa, reported in (1998) 9 SCC 180, Union of India & Anr v. V.M. Salgaoncar and Bros. Ltd. & Ors, reported in (1998) 4 SCC 263, and Akbar Badrudin Giwani v. Collector of Customs,…

Commissioner of Central Excise vs. M/S. Madhan Agro Industries (I) Pvt. Ltd

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

…support of its contention that the expression ‘for use’ can only mean ‘intended for use’ and not ‘actual use’, is misplaced as that decision turned upon the language of Section 5(2)(a)(iv) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, and the said 10 (1976) 2 SCC 241 11 AIR 1988 SC 342 36 interpretation cannot be applied mutatis mutandis in the present case, as the wording of the provisions presently under consideration and the rules of interpretation applicable thereto are entirely different. The argument of the Revenue that the fact that edible coconut oil marketed by the respondents could also b…

Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise vs. M/S D.L.Steels Through Its Manager

The appeals are dismissed without

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

…le. (c) When goods cannot be classified by reference to (a) or (b), they shall be classified under the heading which occurs last in numerical order among those which equally merit consideration”. 12 See Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of Indian and Ors. (1976) 2 SCC 241, and Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Connaught Plaza Restaurant Private Ltd., New Delhi (2012) 13 SCC 639. Civil Appeal Nos. 2360-2376 of 2009 Page 9 of 26 ambiguity as to its meaning, it must be interpreted for the purpose of classification in the popular sense, which is the sense attributed to it by those people who are…

Commissioner of Central Excise Etc vs. M/S.Aishwarya Industries Through Its Managing Director Etc

Bench: Us.

…ould be classified according to their popular meaning or as they are understood in their commercial sense and not as per the scientific or technical meaning. Indo International Industries v. CST ((1981) 2 SCC 528 and Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of India (1976) 2 SCC 241 have settled this proposition. How is the product identified by the class or section of people dealing with or using the 61 product is also a test when the statute itself does not contain any definition and commercial parlance would assume importance when the goods are marketable as was held in Atul Glass Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CCE (1986) 3 SC…

S Rangaswamy Naik vs. B R Ravikanthe Gowda

Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

…® IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 19th day of April, 2013 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MANOHAR W.P.Nos.26731 to 26742 of 2009 (S-KAT) C/w WP Nos.28578 to 28591 of 2009 (S-KAT) WP Nos.1822 to 1834 of 2010 & 2786 of 2010 (S-KAT) WP Nos.6137 to 6144 of 2010 & 21092 to 21096 of 2010 (S-KAT) W.P.Nos.26731 to 26742 of 2009 (S-KAT) BETWEEN: 1. S. Rangaswamy Naik S/o S. Krishnappa Naik Aged about 53 years Working as Superintendent of Police, City Division Karnataka Lokayukta Police M.S. Building Dr. Am…

Commnr.of Central Excise, New Delhi vs. M/S.Connaught Plaza Rest.(P)Ltd.N.D

…Technical and scientific tests offer guidance only within limits. Once the articles are in circulation and come to be described and known in common parlance, we then see no difficulty for statutory classification under a particular entry.” 7 (1976) 2 SCC 241 15 Page 16 JUDGMENT 23. In Shri Bharuch Coconut Trading Co. and Ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad & Ors.8, this Court applied the test as "would a householder when asked to bring some fresh fruits or some vegetable for the evening meal, bring coconut too as vegetable (sic)?” The Court held that when a person goes to a c…

Cemento Corporation Ltd vs. Collector of Central Excise

The appeal is allowed accordingly without any order as to costs

…t or a Variety of cement. In our view, there is no ambiguity in the definition of T.I. 23(1) or 23(2). Even if there were, on the principle that when two constructions can be equally drawn, the one (See: Dunlop India Limited v. Union of India and Ors.. [1976] 2 SCC 241.) favourable to the tax payer should be adopted, the Tribunal should have held in favour of the appellant. Indeed an earlier Bench of the same Bench of CEGAT, in Nageswara Pozzolana Works Pvt. Ltd v. Collector of C. Ex. (1992) 58 ELT 321 had clearly held: "The dictionary meaning of cement cannot be the factor for considering the product in question…