Mehra Bros. v. The Joint Commercial Officer, Madras

M/S Bharti Airtel Ltd vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune III

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

…M/s. Annapurna Carbon Industries Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1976) 2 SCC 273. (ii) Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Bombay v. L.D. Bhave & Sons, 1981 SCC OnLine Bom 438. (ii) Mehra Brothers v. Joint Commercial Officer, (1991) 1 SCC 514. The Bombay High Court on examination held these decisions not to be applicable to the present case. 9.17 The Bombay High Court then considered the contentions advanced on behalf of the Revenue which were as follows :- i) Since towers and parts thereof are fixed to the earth, thus, after being installed become immovable property and hence…

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K. V. Srinivasa Rao

…nt questions to a witness before his attention is called to those parts of the writing with a view to contradict him. In support of this contention, reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court in Shyam Singh v. State of Punjab [(1952) 1 SCC 514: 1952 68 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:2282-DB ) SCR 812]. Bose, J. describes the procedure to be followed to contradict a witness under Section 145 of the Evidence Act thus at p. 819: Resort to Section 145 would only be necessary if the witness denies that he made the former statement. In that event, it would be necessary to prove that he…

M/S Pragati Silicons Pvt. Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi

The appeal is allowed

…are covered by the relevant entry No. 4. (Para11) [Emphasis supplied] 17. The above decision was relied upon in the case of Mehra Bros. v. The Joint Commercial Officer, Madras [(1991) 1 SCC 514]. The primary issue before the Court in this case was whether ‘car seat covers’ could be considered ‘articles adapted to use generally as parts and accessories of motor vehicles’. The Court, holding that car seat covers and upholstery were in fact accessories to motor vehicles, observed as follows: "In Black’s…