Hansraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave, Asst. Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Surat and Ors, AIR 1970 SC 755

2 SCR 253Reported decision1969#6290 most cited

What is Hansraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave, Asst. Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Surat and Ors, AIR 1970 SC 755 authority for?

In a taxing statute, the interpretation must be based strictly on the plain language of the provision and not on any presumed intention of the legislature or the exempting authority. If a taxpayer falls within the clear terms of an exemption, the benefit cannot be denied by invoking a supposed intention.

18

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2001 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Hansraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave · taxing statute · interpretation of statute · plain meaning of words · legislative intention · exemption · assessment procedure · section 132 · section 143(3) · section 147 · section 148 · section 149 · section 153A · section 153C · section 148A

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 153ASection 153CSection 148A

Issues it is cited on

section 153(a)(1)section 149(1)(a)section 153(a)section 153a(1)(b)section 149(1)(b)management feessection 153c(1)section 149(1)block periodsection 260asection 148a(b)section 153a(1)

Judgments citing Hansraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave, Asst. Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Surat and Ors, AIR 1970 SC 755

DCIT CC 2 2, Chennai vs. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the

ITA 1259/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1163, 1256, 1257 & 1259/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 | The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.1231, 1232, 1234 & 1236/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Department By : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit Assessee By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250

…ssue a notice u/s 148 of the Act and a notice, if at all issued, would be void ab initio for patent lack of jurisdiction. 6.3.12 In the case of Hansraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave, Asst. Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Surat and Ors, AIR 1970 SC 755 (1969) 2 SCR 253 the observations of Lord Watson in Salomon vs. Salomon & Co., (1897) AC 22) was referred to with the observations are: "Intention of the legislature is a common but very slippery phrase, which, popularly understood may signify anything from intention embodied in positive enactment to speculative opinion as to what the legislature. probably would ha…

DCIT CC 2 2, Chennai vs. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the

ITA 1257/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1163, 1256, 1257 & 1259/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.1231, 1232, 1234 & 1236/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Department By : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit Assessee By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250

…ssue a notice u/s 148 of the Act and a notice, if at all issued, would be void ab initio for patent lack of jurisdiction. 6.3.12 In the case of Hansraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave, Asst. Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Surat and Ors, AIR 1970 SC 755 (1969) 2 SCR 253 the observations of Lord Watson in Salomon vs. Salomon & Co., (1897) AC 22) was referred to with the observations are: "Intention of the legislature is a common but very slippery phrase, which, popularly understood may signify anything from intention embodied in positive enactment to speculative opinion as to what the legislature. probably would ha…

DCIT CC 2 2, Chennai vs. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

ITA 1256/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &
Section 132Section 148Section 20Section 250

…st. Hansraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave, Asst. Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Surat and Ors, AIR 1970 SC 755 Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Surat and Ors, AIR 1970 SC 755 Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Surat and Ors, AIR 1970 SC 755 (1969) 2 SCR 253 (1969) 2 SCR 253 the observations of Lord Watson in Salomon vs. the observations of Lord Watson in Salomon vs. Salomon & Co., (18 Salomon & Co., (1897) AC 22) was referred to with the observations are: 97) AC 22) was referred to with the observations are: “Intention of the legislature is a common but very slippery phrase, “Intention of the legisla…

Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

ITA 1236/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &
Section 132Section 148Section 20Section 250

…st. Hansraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave, Asst. Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Surat and Ors, AIR 1970 SC 755 Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Surat and Ors, AIR 1970 SC 755 Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Surat and Ors, AIR 1970 SC 755 (1969) 2 SCR 253 (1969) 2 SCR 253 the observations of Lord Watson in Salomon vs. the observations of Lord Watson in Salomon vs. Salomon & Co., (18 Salomon & Co., (1897) AC 22) was referred to with the observations are: 97) AC 22) was referred to with the observations are: “Intention of the legislature is a common but very slippery phrase, “Intention of the legisla…

Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai

ITA 1234/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1163, 1256, 1257 & 1259/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.1231, 1232, 1234 & 1236/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : 08.10.2025 : 21.11.2025

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250

…ssue a notice u/s 148 of the Act and a notice, if at all issued, would be void ab initio for patent lack of jurisdiction. 6.3.12 In the case of Hansraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave, Asst. Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Surat and Ors, AIR 1970 SC 755 (1969) 2 SCR 253 the observations of Lord Watson in Salomon vs. Salomon & Co., (1897) AC 22) was referred to with the observations are: "Intention of the legislature is a common but very slippery phrase, which, popularly understood may signify anything from intention embodied in positive enactment to speculative opinion as to what the legislature. probably would ha…

Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the

ITA 1232/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1163, 1256, 1257 & 1259/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.1231, 1232, 1234 & 1236/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : 08.10.2025 : 21.11.2025

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250

…ssue a notice u/s 148 of the Act and a notice, if at all issued, would be void ab initio for patent lack of jurisdiction. 6.3.12 In the case of Hansraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave, Asst. Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Surat and Ors, AIR 1970 SC 755 (1969) 2 SCR 253 the observations of Lord Watson in Salomon vs. Salomon & Co., (1897) AC 22) was referred to with the observations are: "Intention of the legislature is a common but very slippery phrase, which, popularly understood may signify anything from intention embodied in positive enactment to speculative opinion as to what the legislature. probably would ha…

Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt.. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the

ITA 1231/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1163, 1256, 1257 & 1259/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.1231, 1232, 1234 & 1236/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : 08.10.2025 : 21.11.2025

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250

…ssue a notice u/s 148 of the Act and a notice, if at all issued, would be void ab initio for patent lack of jurisdiction. 6.3.12 In the case of Hansraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave, Asst. Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Surat and Ors, AIR 1970 SC 755 (1969) 2 SCR 253 the observations of Lord Watson in Salomon vs. Salomon & Co., (1897) AC 22) was referred to with the observations are: "Intention of the legislature is a common but very slippery phrase, which, popularly understood may signify anything from intention embodied in positive enactment to speculative opinion as to what the legislature. probably would ha…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2 (2), Chennai vs. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt Ltd, Chennai

ITA 1163/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1163, 1256, 1257 & 1259/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.1231, 1232, 1234 & 1236/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : 08.10.2025 : 21.11.2025

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250

…ssue a notice u/s 148 of the Act and a notice, if at all issued, would be void ab initio for patent lack of jurisdiction. 6.3.12 In the case of Hansraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave, Asst. Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Surat and Ors, AIR 1970 SC 755 (1969) 2 SCR 253 the observations of Lord Watson in Salomon vs. Salomon & Co., (1897) AC 22) was referred to with the observations are: "Intention of the legislature is a common but very slippery phrase, which, popularly understood may signify anything from intention embodied in positive enactment to speculative opinion as to what the legislature. probably would ha…

Rupesh Vyas, Indore vs. The ACIT3(1), Indore

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 50/IND/2020[150-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Dec 2022

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…on increased the tax burden on other members of the community correspondingly. One of court 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 Vs. H. H. Dave, 1961 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 statue, 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…

Commnr. of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs. M/S. Dilip Kumar and Company

C.A. No.-003327-003327 - 2007Supreme Court30 Jul 2018

Bench: A Bench Of Two­Judges. The Matter Then Went Before A Three­Judge Bench Consisting One Of Us (Ranjan Gogoi, J.). The Three­ Judge Bench Having Noticed The Unsatisfactory State Of Law As It Stands Today, Opined That The Dicta In Sun Export Case (Supra), Requires Reconsideration & That Is How The Matter Has Been Placed Before This Constitution Bench. 2

…IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3327 OF 2007 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), MUMBAI …APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S. DILIP KUMAR AND COMPANY & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T N . V . R A M A N A , J . 1. This Constitution Bench is setup to examine the correctness of the ratio in Sun Export Corporation, Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, (1997) 6 SCC 564 [hereinafter referred as ‘Sun Export Case’ for brevity], namely the question is ­ What is the interpretative rule to be applied while interpreting…

M/S Star Industries vs. Commissioner of Customs(Imports) Raigad

C.A. No.-006088-006088 - 2013Supreme Court07 Oct 2015
Section 108Section 110Section 111Section 3(1)

…provision 3 1994 (73) ELT 769 (SC) Civil Appeal No. 6088 of 2013 Page 27 of 32 Page 28 JUDGMENT 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. H.H. Dave, (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 th…

M/S Star Industries vs. Commissioner of Customs(Imports) Raigad

C.A. No.-006088-006088 - 2013Supreme Court07 Oct 2015
Section 108Section 110Section 111Section 3(1)

…provision 3 1994 (73) ELT 769 (SC) Civil Appeal No. 6088 of 2013 Page 27 of 32 Page 28 JUDGMENT 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. H.H. Dave, (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 th…

M/S. B.P.L. Ltd vs. Commnr. of Central Excise, Calicut

C.A. No.-005523-005523 - 2004Supreme Court05 May 2015
Section 11A

…Page 1 JUDGMENT NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5523 OF 2004 M/S. B.P.L. LIMITED .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, COCHIN-II COMMISSIONERATE .....RESPONDENT(S) W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6037 OF 2004 J U D G M E N T A.K. SIKRI, J. The issue, which arises for consideration in the present appeals is whether the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'CESTAT'), Bangalore erred in disallowing the benefit of the Notification No.8/96 dated 23.07.1996 and Notification No.4/97 dated 01.03.97 respectively to the a…

M/S. B.P.L. Ltd vs. Commnr. of Central Excise, Calicut

C.A. No.-005523-005523 - 2004Supreme Court05 May 2015
Section 11A

…Page 1 JUDGMENT NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5523 OF 2004 M/S. B.P.L. LIMITED .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, COCHIN-II COMMISSIONERATE .....RESPONDENT(S) W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6037 OF 2004 J U D G M E N T A.K. SIKRI, J. The issue, which arises for consideration in the present appeals is whether the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'CESTAT'), Bangalore erred in disallowing the benefit of the Notification No.8/96 dated 23.07.1996 and Notification No.4/97 dated 01.03.97 respectively to the a…

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. New Bombay Goods Transport

ITTA/249/2013HC Telangana11 Jul 2013

M/S. Mustan Taherbhai vs. Commnr. of Central Excise & Customs

The appeal is allowed; the impugned order is set aside, and

C.A. No.-003788-003788 - 2003Supreme Court28 Feb 2011
Section 129Section 130E

…ent at the time of its breaking. Reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in Hansraj Gordhandas Vs. H.H. Dave, Assistant Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Surat & Ors.7; Novopan India Ltd., Hyderabad Vs. 6 1995 Supp (3) SCC 223 7 (1969) 2 SCR 253 1 Collector of Central Excise And Customs, Hyderabad8 and Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Indore Vs. Parenteral Drugs India Ltd.9 to contend that the terms of an exemption notification have to be construed strictly. 17.Having bestowed our anxious consideration, we are constrained to hold that the impugned judgment deserves to…

Commnr. of Central Excise, Shillong vs. M/S. North Eastern Tobacco Ltd

C.A. No.-000200-000201 - 2002Supreme Court28 Nov 2002
For Respondent: NORTH-EASTERN TOBACCO CO. LTD
Section 5A

…http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 200-201 of 2002 PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE. SHILLONG RESPONDENT: NORTH-EASTERN TOBACCO CO. LTD. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/11/2002 BENCH: M.B. SHAH & D.M. DHARMADHIKARI JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 2002 Supp(4) SCR 373 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by: DHARMADHIKARI, J. These appeals have been preferred by the Commissioner of Central Excise. Shillong representing the Department of Central Excise to assail separate orders passed in appeals by the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. Kolkata [hereinafter re…

Collector of Customs, Bombay vs. M/S.M.J. Exports Ltd

Appeal is allowed and the decision of CEGAT

C.A. No.-006069-006069 - 1999Supreme Court14 Aug 2001
For Respondent: M.J. EXPORTS LTD
Section 11Section 113Section 28(1)

…that the import was for India and not for being exported to another country. Mr. Andhyarujina, learned senior counsel for the respondent referred to Hansraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave, Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Surat and Two Ors., [1969] 2 SCR 253 and submitted that it is well established that in a taxing statute there is no rule for any intendment but regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words. While there can be no quarrel with this proposition in Hansraj’s case, the Court did observe at page 259 as follows : "...... If the tax-payer is within the plain terms of the exemption it…