SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(SC) 656

R.M.SAHAI, SUHAS C.SEN
Kirloskar Oil Engines – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent


Advocates:
A.Hidayathullah, SANDIP NARAYAN

Judgment

R.M. SAHAI, J.

(1) THE principal issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether "thrust washers", "thrust half-washers" and wrapped bushes manufactured by the appellant exclusively for motor vehicles could be classified as "thin walled-bearings" so as to attract duty under Notification No. 99 issued in 1971. Apart from this another legal question which has cropped up mainly due to the High courts finding and approach of departmental authorities whether a goods which has a meaning assigned to it with consensus of Department and trade could be held to be so even without satisfying the requirements on the premise that the court and quasi-judicial authorities are not bound by it.

(2) LEGALLY there can be no two opinions that a trade notice issued by the Collector of Excise or even the central and Excise Tariff Board (in brief Board) has no binding authority and the assessing authority can draw its conclusions but the importance of it can be appreciated in this appeal only when facts, in brief, are narrated. The appellant is manufacturer of the bushes and washers which are exclusively used in motor vehicles. They are thus parts and acc





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top