Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.58 seconds)
Documents citing Larsen And Toubro Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... on 13 March, 2000

Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Elgi Equipments on 9 March, 2001

5. The Representative appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that concurrent findings have been given by both the authorities in regard to the two items. He relied upon the judgments noted and submits that the issue is no longer res Integra. The question of denying the benefit in respect of these two items does not arise. He also relied upon the judgment in the case of Larsen & Toubro v. C.C.E. as reported in 1998 (101) E.L.T. 131 and that of the C.C.E. v. Hydro S & S Industries reported in 1998 (104) E.L.T. 421 and also in the case of AVI Photochem Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1997 (93) E.L.T. 439 which deals with these items.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 3 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Rsf Technology Corpn. vs Commissioner Of Customs, Mumbai on 14 May, 2002

Reliance has also been placed on the decision in the case of Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. CCE, Bombay -1996 (88) E.L.T. 176, wherein it was held that exemption to parts used in the manufacture of electrical goods under Notification No. 233/83-Cus. is not deniable merely because such parts may be finished products or complete articles by themselves since the finished products can also be used as parts in manufacturing other products.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Whether Press Reporter May Be Allowed To ... vs Unknown on 28 November, 2008

(i) M/s. Larsen & Tubro Ltd. vs. CCE, reported in 2006 (3) STR 321 (Tri.-LB)  The case relates to determining the issue as to whether procurement of orders on behalf of the principals would be covered under the definition of Clearing & Forwarding Agent. It has been held that the expression, directly or indirectly and in any manner cannot be isolated from definition.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Autolec Industries Ltd. vs Commr. Of Central Excise on 22 March, 2000

3. Shri S. Kannan, learned DR submits that the basic use of the said shaft is to transmit power from the IC engine to which it is connected at appropriate place when the motive rotary power is transmitted through this shaft and the pulley to the impeller in the water pump. The impeller is driven by this shaft and pulley rotating at high speed. Therefore, the shaft and the pulley perform the functions of maintaining the vacuum for the purposes of drawing and pushing water in the housing of the pump. Instead only the functions of this equipment is to transmit the rotary motive power from the engine to the impeller of the pump. Therefore, when specific heading is available in the tariff for covering transmission shaft which transmits the motive power then we cannot classify the same in a lesser specific heading concerning parts of water pump irrespective of how it may be traded in the market. He further submits that unless Note 2(a) of Section XVI is clearly found inapplicable we cannot proceed under Rule 2(b) and this principle has been repeatedly upheld by this Tribunal in various decisions. He also cites the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Larsen & Toubro v. CCE as reported in 1988 (98) ELT 861 wherein the Tribunal had held that Torsion Shaft having been used for transmitting rotary motive power would be classifiable under heading 84.83 of the tariff and not under 8479.00. He submits that the function of this shaft being similar, the ratio of this decision would apply.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next