Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Punishment for connivance at offences.-Any owner or occupier of land or any agent of such owner or occupier in charge of the management of the laud, who wilfully connives at any offence against the provisions of I. state of litliar v. Ashok Industries. A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 838 at p. 840. 6 MEDICINAL ANDTOILET PREPARATIONS SECTION 4 (EXCISE DU IES)ACT,1955 Comments Taxing Provision-Rule of interpretation -It is settled law that a distinction has between to be made by Court while interpreting the provisions of a taxing to to visions which charging provisions which impose the charge to tax and machinery pro t collection provide the machinery for the quantification ions ax and the levying a dmochinery of the tax so imposed. While charging p sections are not generally subject to a rigorous construction. The Courts are expected to con?true the machinery sections in such a manner that a charge to tax is not defeated. Interpretation of statute .-While interpreting a taxing statute, equity has no place. Th9 clear language of the statute is to be given effect notwithstanding hardship. Market price.-?e market price relates only to the essential commodity sought to be carried. Real value of the preparation-Determination of.--The firm of M. B. Bhavsar and Sonsalthough first a pellant anappellants fwer•e parts rs but a sontof eachtof them the olstr P interest was aaoaandd So wand the was of BhavsariChemical Woks. Bothutheseifirms 1 ad t h s it offices and under the partnership agreement the sons appellant and the other two appellants were to share only in the of the original first the spore premises i'thyy cannot be said to be at arm's length liable iilndependen losses 'lese two firms, t parties profits of therefore. and the prices Bhavsar Chemical Works to p at which the medicinal M.D. havsa and Sons cannot be taken to be e breal vale of the said prepara- tions. reparat ons Mees dicnal din reparations were oft the old Schedule does not mean that medicinal of 'Me referr ag tem for b fact that medicinal re that ions of h the sa defir niweree in seni-solidrf g m was, therefore, a olcin p Parafactor wholly iorelnot nThese p eparatl ns were 1i tent ore pr said oprietary preparations which item was theref9re. oit was rdinary alcoholic undXiat such isputed The High iCou s were of containedc alcohol a and of g right in holding that these medicinal preparations were dutiable under item 1.