CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
P.C. Jain, JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, JJ.
Goa Bottling Co. (P.) Ltd. -Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise -Respondent
Order No. E/14/93-D Appeal No. E/715/88-D, E/14 of 1993, E/715 of 1988
Decided On : 11-01-1993
Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. The issue for determination in the above appeal is the eligibility of aerated waters manufactured by the appellants to the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification 175/86 dated 1-3-1986.
2. The appellants are the manufacturers of aerated waters namely soda and flavour sweetened drinks falling under Heading Nos. 22.01 and 22.02 respectively of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Government of India issued Notification No. 175/86-CE on 1-3-1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the said notification") giving certain exemptions to small scale industry based on value of their clearances and the aerated waters were covered under the said exemption. The appellant company was originally registered as a small scale unit with the Director of Industries and Mines, Government of Goa, Daman
3. Soon after the 1985-86 budget, the appellants filed a classification list No. C-40/85-86 effective from 1-3-1986 in view of the changes in the tariff classification and changes in the 1986 budget, under the provisions of Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules 1944. In this classification list the appellant company did not claim the benefit of exemption Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 as the appellants had already crossed a turnover of Rs. 75 lakhs during 1985-86 upto 28th February 1986. However, since the appellants were entitled to exemption under the said notification with effect from
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.