Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.24 seconds)
Documents citing Rainbow Surgical Dressing Mfg. Co. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 30 December, 1980

Alpine Industries vs Collector Of Central Excise on 5 September, 1995

In the Rainbow Industries's case, the Supreme Court held that if the department had accepted the price list, acted upon it and the goods were cleared with a knowledge of the Department, in the absence of any amendment of the law or judicial pronouncement, the classification should be effective from the date of issue of Show Cause Notice. The Principal Collector, in his order, has confirmed the demand for a period prior to the issue of Show Cause Notice. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the demand would be effective from the date of Show Cause Notice, and would not cover the previous six months. No intention to evade duty was cited in the Show Cause Notice which the Principal Collector has adjudicated. However, this would not be applicable for the later period, since there was no change in the classification. In the result, therefore, except [the] modification in the preceding paragraphs, we confirm the orders appealed against.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Eimco Elecon (India) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 11 April, 2002

6. It is next contended that the extended period of limitation will not be available to the department because there has been no suppression; the appellant had declared the goods in its classification list as it cleared the goods during part of the period as part of an air motor and during the remaining period as a part in Heading 84.83. This includes parts suitable for use solely or principally with the machinery of Headings 84.25 to 84.30 - pulley tackle and hoists other than skip hoists, winches and capstans; jacks, fork-lift trucks, other works trucks fitted with lifting or handling equipment etc. other lifting, handling and loading or unloading machinery; bull-dozer and similar machinery; other moving grading, levelling, scraping etc. machinery. The conclusion of the Commissioner from this is that the appellant had not declared at any time the goods under consideration as pinion. We do not see how from the description of the goods either as parts or motors or part of any of the other machinery that we have briefly referred to, the departmental officers would have been in a position to conclude that the goods, the classification 'of which they approved as claimed, were, in fact, gearing or gear. We are therefore of the view that the extended period of limitation has rightly been invoked. The ratio of the Supreme Court's judgment in Rainbow Industries v. Union of India 1994 (74) E.L.T. 3 will not apply.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1