P.J. Irani v. State of Madras

2 SCR 169Reported decision1962#23428 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,254 Indian tax judgments — from 2006 to 2009.

Judgments citing P.J. Irani v. State of Madras

Unison Electronics Pvt. Ltd vs. Commissioiner, Central Excise, Noida

The appeals are dismissed

C.A. No.-006788-006789 - 2005Supreme Court13 Feb 2009

Bench: Dispatch From Their Factory & Stickers Bearing Uts/Tsn Were Being Affixed & These Sticker Bear The Words “Checked Sl. No. Do Not Remove This Sticker” & That The 2

Section 5A

…REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS 6788-6789 OF 2005 Unison Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. ….Appellants Versus Commissioner, Central Excise, Noida ….Respondent J U D G M E N T Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. In these appeals challenge is to the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short ‘CESTAT’). The basic issue is whether the appellants are clearing excisable goods manufactured by them bearing the brand name of another person. 1 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The SSI Exemption Notificati…

Dilip N. Shroff vs. Joint Commnr. of Income Tax, Mumbai &Anr

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-002746-002746 - 2007Supreme Court18 May 2007

For Respondent: Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr

…RCR 156] while upholding the notification of exemption granted in favour of the District Board, before this Court a distinction was sought to be made that whereas in the Madras Act which was applicable in the case of P.J. Irani vs. State of Madras [(1962) 2 SCR 169], the expression used was "unreasonable eviction of tenants"; in the Punjab Act, the expression used was "eviction of tenants". But this Court found no distinction between the two Acts as one of the objects of the Acts was eviction of unreasonable tenants and the expression "unreasonable" thus was held to be read in the title of the Rent Act.…

M/S. Reiz Electrocontrols Pvt. Ltd vs. Commnr. of Central Excise, Delhi-I

C.A. No.-007449-007449 - 2003Supreme Court31 Jul 2006

For Respondent: Commr. of Central Excise, Delhi-I

…ment and is supposed to be employed to further the objects of enactment \027 subject, of course, to the condition that the notification is not ultra vires the Act, and/or Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (See P.J. Irani V. State of Madras [(1962) 2 SCR 169]". In Pahwa Chemicals Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi [2005 (189) ELT 257 (SC)] it was held as follows at para 3: "Paragraph 4 and Explanation IX of Notification have been construed by this Court in Commissioner of Centra…