Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court quashes improper show cause notices, upholds petitioner's classification under sub-heading 8503.00.</h1> <h3>Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Versus Union of India & Ors.</h3> Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Versus Union of India & Ors. - 2017 (351) E.L.T. 27 (Bom.) Issues Involved:1. Legality of the show cause notices issued by the Revenue.2. Classification of stators and rotors under the Central Excise Tariff.3. Application of circulars and instructions from the Central Board of Excise and Customs.4. Retrospective vs. prospective application of circulars.5. Binding nature of circulars on adjudicating authorities.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Show Cause Notices Issued by the Revenue:The petitioner challenged a show cause notice issued by the respondent-Revenue and an order made in furtherance thereof. The show cause notices were issued on 11th January 1989 and 21st April 1989, seeking to classify stators and rotors under sub-heading 8414.91 and alleging a short levy of duty. The court found that the show cause notices could not have been issued based on the subsequent circular dated 13th December 1989, which was meant to be applied prospectively. Therefore, the show cause notices and the demand raised in furtherance thereof were quashed and set aside.2. Classification of Stators and Rotors under the Central Excise Tariff:The petitioners classified stators and rotors under sub-heading 8501.00 when cleared together and under sub-heading 8503.00 when cleared individually. This classification was approved by the Excise Department until the issuance of the show cause notices. The court noted that the classification of stators and rotors under sub-heading 8414.91 was contrary to the existing circulars and instructions from the Central Board of Excise and Customs, which classified these items under sub-heading 8503.00.3. Application of Circulars and Instructions from the Central Board of Excise and Customs:The petitioners relied on Circular No.6/1986-CX4 dated 25th September 1986 and subsequent trade notices, which classified stators and rotors under sub-heading 8503.00. The court emphasized that the show cause notices ignored these clear instructions. The circular dated 25th September 1986, addressed to all Collectors of Central Excise, clarified the classification of parts and accessories of refrigerating and air conditioning machinery, including stators and rotors under heading 8503.00.4. Retrospective vs. Prospective Application of Circulars:The court highlighted that the circular issued on 13th December 1989, which classified stators and rotors under heading 84.14, explicitly stated that the practice followed in light of the earlier clarification should be changed only prospectively. Therefore, the show cause notices issued prior to this circular could not rely on it for classification purposes. The court ruled that the retrospective application of the 1989 circular was not permissible.5. Binding Nature of Circulars on Adjudicating Authorities:The court referenced judgments from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including Collector of Central Excise, Bombay vs. Jayant Dalal Private Limited, Paper Products Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, and Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited. These judgments established that circulars issued by the Board are binding on the Revenue and adjudicating authorities. The court concluded that the adjudicating authority could not disregard the binding nature of the circulars and issue show cause notices contrary to them.Conclusion:The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing both the show cause notices and the demand raised in furtherance thereof. The court reiterated that the circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs are binding on the Revenue and must be applied prospectively as stated. The petitioners' long-standing classification practice was upheld, and the retrospective application of the 1989 circular was deemed invalid.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found