Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2006 (4) TMI 271

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re passing a common order in respect of both the appeals. 2. The appellants M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd., manufactured Solar Power Traffic Signal Systems valued at Rs. 73,72,000/- during the period from May, 2003 to October, 2003 without payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 6/2002-CE, dated 1-3-2002 as amended. Similarly, they cleared the goods valued at Rs. 2,66,58,080/- for the period from November, 2003 to May, 2004. The Revenue proceeded against the appellants on the ground that the impugned goods are not covered in the list annexed to the Notification. The lower authorities confirmed the demands. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the Solar Power Traffic Signal Systems and Solar Street Lights are not eligible for the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r street lights. (iii)    Relying on the Apex Court decision in the case of Shriram Vinyl v. CCE - 2001 (129) E.L.T. 278 = JT 2001 (4) SC 89 (3 Member Bench), he submits that the above Notification should not be interpreted in such a manner as to defeat the purpose of the same. In fact the Notification No. 6/2002 has been issued with an intention to encourage the utilisation of non-conventional energy. The denial of the benefit of the notification for Solar Traffic Signal Systems and Solar Street Lights is not justified. Further, the following Apex Court decisions were relied on :- (i)       Union of India v. Wood Papers Ltd. [1990 (47) E.L.T. 500 (S.C.)] (ii)    &nbs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or of Central Excise [1993 (66) E.L.T. 37 (S.C.)] wherein it was inter alia observed as follows : "It is no doubt true that the doctrine of Noscitur A Sociis, meaning thereby that it is a legitimate rule of construction to construe words in an Act of Parliament with reference to words found in immediate connection with them i.e. when two or more words which are susceptible of analogous meaning are clubbed together, they are understood to be used in their cognate sense. They take, as it were, their colour from each other, the meaning of the more general is restricted to a sense analogous to a less general. The philosophy behind it is that the meaning of the doubtful words may be ascertained by reference to the meaning of words associated ....