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

1988 Supreme(Cal) 147

SUHAS C.SEN
GOPAL HOSIERY – Appellant
Versus
ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF C. EX. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
N.C.Roy Chowdhwy, Narilal Banerjee, P.P.Ginwalla, Uma Sanyal

SUHAS CHANDRA SEN, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner No. 1 is a registered partnership firm. Its factory and office are located at 61, Ibrahimpur Road, Jadavpur, 24-Parganas. The petitioner No. 2 is a partner No 3

( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that they manufacture "articles of hosiery". The products manufactured by the petitioners were not liable to levy of any excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and was not subjected to tax since the petitioners began its business even before 1962.

( 3 ) IN the year 1971 by the Finance Act, 1971, a new tariff item No. 22d was introduced in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Under the said item No. 22d "articles of ready-to-wear apparel and body supporting garments" were for the first time brought under the levy of C. E. duty. The tariff description was as under:

Item

No. (1) 22d Articles of ready-to-wear apparel (known commercially (2) (3) Ten per cent ad

Description of goods. Rate of duty.

as ready-made-garments), including under garments and valorem .

body supporting garments but excluding articles of

hosiery, in or in relation to the manufacture of which any

process is ordinarily ca




















































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