Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 36 (1.92 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Agarwal Rubber (P) Ltd., M/S T.M. ... vs The Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... on 13 August, 2001

Dhariwal Industries Ltd, Pune vs Assessee on 2 May, 2016

In support of my views, I place reliance on the decisions in the case of Rhino Rubbers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, reported in 1996 (85) ELT 260 (Tri.) where it is held that "It is not safe to rely only on the third party's 87 ITA Nos.1318 to 1324/PN/13 and ITA Nos. 1389 to 1391 and 1408 to 1410/PN/13 records evidence when no direct links of the transactions established - Other parameters like electricity consumption etc.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 68 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals And ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 24 August, 2007

3. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants had been paid the impugned amounts, sanctioning their refund claims in accordance with law by the competent authority. If the department felt that the amounts had been sanctioned erroneously, the appropriate course of action was to issue a show cause notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act and not just filing an appeal under Section 35E(2). As no show cause notice was issued, recovery of the refund amounts already sanctioned could not be ordered. Therefore, the impugned order was liable to be set aside. He also sought to seek support from the decision of the Tribunal in Panyam Cements Mineral Indus. Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad reported in 2004 (178) ELT 434 (Tri.-Bang.) and Circular No. 423/56/98-CX dated 22.9.1998 issued by the CBEC. In the circular issued by the Board, the Board had instructed that demands should invariably be issued under Section 11A of the Act and that recourse to review under Section 31E of the Act alone was not sufficient in cases of consequential refunds following orders not accepted. In the order of the Tribunal cited by the Ld. Counsel, the Tribunal had observed that to recover the amounts already paid to the appellants, the only course open to the department was to issue a show cause notice under Section 11A of the Act, for recovery of the erroneous refunds and simultaneously filing the appeal before the appellate authority, challenging the order of the Assistant Commissioner who sanctioned the refund claim.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cethar Vessels Ltd. And Ors. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 29 January, 2002

In the case of Quality Steel Tubes (P) Ltd. v. CCE the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that plant and machinery embedded to earth, structures, erections and installations are not excisable goods, since they do not pass the twin test of being capable of being brought to the market. The Supreme Court noted several judgments and observed that the basic test of levying duty under the Act was two fold. One, that any article must be goods and second, that it should be marketable or capable of being brought to the market. Goods which are attached to the earth and thus become immovable do not satisfy the test of being goods within the meaning of the Act nor it can be said to be capable of being brought to the market for being bought and sold. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that both the tests were not satisfied in the case of appellant as the tube mill or welding head having been erected and installed in the premises and embedded to earth they ceased to the goods within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act. Observing the contention of the learned Counsel for the Revenue that even if the goods were capable of being brought to the market it would attract levy, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "True, but erection and installation of a plant cannot be held to be excisable goods. If such wide meaning is assigned, it would result in bringing in its ambit structures, erections and installations. That surely would not be in consonance with accepted meaning of excisable goods and its exigibility to duty"
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cethar Vessels Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Indore on 28 January, 2002

In the case of Quality Steel Tubes (P) Ltd. v. CCE, reported in 1995 (75) E.L.T. 17 (S.C.), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that plant and machinery embedded to earth, structures, erections and installations are not excisable goods, since they do not pass the twin test of being capable of being brought to the market. The Supreme Court noted several judgments and observed that the basic test of levying duty under the Act was two fold. One, that any article must be goods and second, that it should be marketable or capable of being brought to the market. Goods which are attached to the earth and thus become immovable do not satisfy the test of being goods within the meaning of the Act nor it can be said to be capable of being brought to the market for being bought and sold. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that both the tests were not satisfied in the case of appellant as the tube mill or welding head having been erected and installed in the premises and embedded to earth they ceased to the goods within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act. Observing the contention of the learned Counsel for the Revenue that even if the goods were capable of being brought to the market it would attract levy, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "True, but erection and installation of a plant cannot be held to be excisable goods. If such wide meaning is assigned, it would result in bringing in its ambit structures, erections and installations. That surely would not be in consonance with accepted meaning of excisable goods and its exigibility to duty."
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 19 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Opel Alloys (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 28 October, 2004

3. The learned Advocate mentioned that in any case the relied upon documents cannot be made the basis for confirming demand as the Appellants' name did not figure any where in the reports such as Chemical Analysis Report, D.G. Set Reports, Mini Ledgers, External Weighment Slips; that further the Chemical Analysis Report were unauthenticated and unsigned and as such are not admissible as evidence; that D.G. Set reports are alleged to have shown quantity of furnace oil purchased by them; that, however, there is no attempt in the show cause notice to correlate this purchase with the production/clearance of ingots; that the Private Registers do not tally with the D.G. Sets reports or the Chemical Analysis Reports; that there is also no attempt made by the Department to correlate the alleged actual amount of scrap purchased shown in these Registers with the production and clearance of M.S. Ingots by them; that none of the pages of these "private registers" were shown to Sunil Garg and his so called admission cannot apply to these registers in any case. He further mentioned that the Revenue has placed reliance on 10 Mini Ledgers; that the figures in these ledgers were inconsistent with those in the Private Registers; that External Weighment Slips are purported to have been issued by Shriram Dharam Kanta and Neelam Dharam Kanta; that no statement had been recorded from any person of Shriram Dharam Kanta; that Shri Vineet Kumar of Neelam Dharam Kanta did not, in his statement, state that the said weighment slips pertained to the Appellants' clearances; that in fact no such question was put to him by the Officers; that it has been held in the case of Rhino Rubber P. Ltd. v. CCE, 1996 (85) E.L.T. 260 that third party records cannot be relied upon to establish an allegation of clandestine removal. He also mentioned that the Department has relied upon certain loose papers allegedly showing payment to certain persons and it has been presumed without any basis that the loose papers showed the cash payments to scrap traders, contractors and truck owners as no statement of any of these persons had been recorded by the Department. He also contended that nothing material has been noticed regarding the statement of Shri Pawan Garg; that the averment that Shri Subhash Garg had, on being shown the Chemical Analysis Reports, accepted the same is entirely incorrect; that Subhash Garg had merely affixed his signature on the said pages in token of having seen them; that he had not admitted the contents of the said reports or even that they applied to the Appellants' production or clearances.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Commnr. Of Central Excise, Indore vs M/S Virdi Brothers And Ors on 12 December, 2006

The issue relating to excisability of plants and machinery assembled at site has been determined by this Court in several cases. For example Quality Steel Tubes Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE (1995 (75) E.L.T. 17 (SC); Mittal Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. v CCE, Meerut (1996 (88) E.L.T. 622 (SC); Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad (1998 (97) E.L.T. 3 (SC); Silica Metallurgical Ltd. v. CCE, Cochin (1999 (106) E.L.T. 439 (Tribunal); Duncan Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai (2000 (88) ECR 19 (SC); Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. v. CCE (2000 (120) E.L.T. 273 (SC) and CCE, Jaipur v. Man Structurals Ltd. (2001 (130) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.) As a matter of fact taking into account these decisions Circular No.58/1/2002-CX dated 15th January, 2002 has been issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi. The Circular indicates that it was intended to clarify the question of excisability of plant and machinery assembled at site. The relevant portion of the Circular reads as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 9 - A Pasayat - Full Document

M/S. Ibex Gallagher Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 17 August, 2007

7. The issue relating to excisability of plants and machinery assembled at site has been determined by this Court in several cases, e.g. Quality Steel Tubes Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE (1995 (75) E.L.T. 17 (SC); Mittal Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. v CCE, Meerut (1996 (88) E.L.T. 622 (SC); Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad (1998 (97) E.L.T. 3 (SC); Silica Metallurgical Ltd. v. CCE, Cochin (1999 (106) E.L.T. 439 (Tribunal); Duncan Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai (2000 (88) ECR 19 (SC); Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. v. CCE (2000 (120) E.L.T. 273 (SC) and CCE, Jaipur v. Man Structurals Ltd. (2001 (130) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.).
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Bengal Iron Corporation vs Coms,C.Ex - Kol - Ii on 22 May, 2024

"20. We also find that the onus to prove clandestine clearances has to be discharged by sufficient cogent, unimpeachable evidence as held in case of CCE v. Laxmi Engg. Works - 2010 (254) E.L.T. 205 (P & H), Shingar Lamps Pvt. Ltd. v CCE, 2002 (150) E.L.T. 290 (T), CCE v. Shingar Lamps Pvt. Ltd., 2010 (255) E.L.T. 221 (P & H), Ruby Chlorates (P) Ltd. v. CCE, 2006 (204) E.L.T. 607 (T), CCE v. Gopi Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., 2014 (302) E.L.T. 435 (T), CCE v. Gopi Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., 2014 (310) E.L.T. 299 (Guj.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 54 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next