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 classifies 'printed cartons' as products of printing industry, exempt from excise duty, quashes order, directs refund.</h1> <h3>ROLLATAINERS LIMITED AND ANOTHER Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS</h3> ROLLATAINERS LIMITED AND ANOTHER Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS - 1984 (18) E.L.T. 217 (Kar.) Issues Involved:1. Classification of 'printed cartons' as products of the printing industry or packaging industry.2. Validity of the Superintendent's demand and show cause notices.3. Jurisdiction of the court to examine the validity of the notices.4. Delay in challenging the notices.5. Rights of the second petitioner (a shareholder) to challenge the notices.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Classification of 'Printed Cartons':The core issue was whether 'printed cartons' manufactured by the petitioner were products of the printing industry or the packaging industry. The petitioner argued that 'printed cartons' fell under the printing industry and were thus exempt from excise duty under Item No. 13 of the exemption notification. The respondents contended that 'printed cartons' were products of the packaging industry and therefore subject to excise duty.The court examined various treatises and legal precedents to determine the classification. It referenced the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Dunlop India Limited v. Union of India and others, which emphasized the importance of the commercial sense and popular meaning of terms in taxing statutes. The court found that 'printed cartons' should be classified as products of the printing industry, as they undergo similar processes and techniques as other printed materials like books and periodicals.2. Validity of the Superintendent's Demand and Show Cause Notices:The petitioner challenged the Superintendent's demand and show cause notices issued after the Government's decision in Vijaya Flexible Container Limited's case, which reclassified 'printed cartons' as products of the packaging industry. The court held that the Superintendent's action, based on the later decision, was manifestly illegal. It found that the earlier decision in Allibhoy Sharufally's case, which classified 'printed cartons' as products of the printing industry, was correct.3. Jurisdiction of the Court:The respondents argued that the petitioner should exhaust alternative remedies under the Act before approaching the court. The court rejected this objection, stating that the communication dated 15-9-1980 (Annexure E) could not be challenged in an appeal or revision under the Act. The court asserted its jurisdiction to examine the validity of the notices.4. Delay in Challenging the Notices:The respondents contended that the petitioner had delayed challenging the notices. The court found no merit in this objection, noting that the delay was neither contumacious nor inordinate. The petitioner had contested the notices promptly upon receipt.5. Rights of the Second Petitioner:The court dismissed the petition insofar as it related to the second petitioner, a shareholder, stating that she could not challenge actions initiated against the company. The court emphasized that this was not a case where a shareholder should be permitted to challenge the law or action against the company on the grounds of Article 19 of the Constitution.Conclusion:The court quashed the Superintendent's order dated 15-9-1980 and the show cause notices dated 24-9-1980. It issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the excise duty collected from the petitioner on 'printed cartons' for the period during which the exemption was in force. The court allowed the respondents to adjust the refund against any other amounts due from the petitioner under the Act. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found