Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 36 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Hrikrishna Polymers (P) Ltd., N. ... vs C.C.E., Chennai-Ii on 8 May, 2001

Deepak Industries vs Raipur on 4 January, 2019

8. We also find that in absence of corroborative evidences, as discussed in preceding paras the demands against the appellants are not sustainable, as held in case of Essvee Ploymers (P) Ltd Vs CCE Chennai 2004 (165) ELT 291, Ambika Chemicals Vs. CCE Chennai 2002 (148) ELT 101 as upheld by Apex Court in case of 2003 (153) ELT A298 (SC), CCE, Calcutta-II Vs 15 Ex. Appeal No.51274 of 2017 Tube Bend (Cal) Pvt Ltd 2001 (136) ELT 839 (Tri, Kolkata), Andhra Cements Ltd Vs CCE., Guntur 2004 (170) ELT 364, Kittibhai Maganbhai Patel Vs Commissioner 2003 (159) ELT 1162 (Tri, Mum) Nav Bharat Paper Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex, Ghaziabad 2004 (165) ELT 564 which has been relied upon by the Appellant.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ather Perwaize vs Kolkata-Port on 24 April, 2025

In the cited case of R. Ravichandran Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, it is seen from Para 3.2 that the appellant had intimated the change of address to the Department. It was noted that inspite of such communication given to the department, still the OIO was posted to the old address. In the present case, as has been noted above, no communication of this kind has been made by the appellant to the Department, nor have they taken care to intimate the post office to redirect their letters to the new address.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kwality Fun Foods And Restaurant P. Ltd. ... vs Cce on 18 November, 2003

7. Ld. Senior Counsel took us through the facts of the case and the one in which the Northern Regional Bench has decided the case in their favour and argued that the judgement fully covers this case. He submitted that the relationship between both the parties was at arm's length and merely because there were some arrangements between them that by itself will not be a cause to club the clearances. He submitted that mere fact of M/s HLL's giving machineries on loan basis or controlling the quality of the manufacturer by stationing their quality officer in the appellant's factory will not make the relationship that of principal and agent. The finances were independently floated and they were independently managing their affairs without any interest in each others capital or holding. Further reference was made to the earlier judgement rendered by this Bench in the case of Renowned Auto Products Mfrs. Ltd. v. CCE Chennai wherein on similar facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal was allowed by holding that there was no relationship between the parties.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 12 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Noveon Diamalt Pvt. Ltd., Orchid ... vs Cce on 5 December, 2002

In the case of M/s. Orchid Chemicals Ltd. (supra), the appellants had been issued with Show cause Notice. But their several pleas have not been considered. The appellants have relied on the Tribunal's holding that the circular has got prospective effect. In that view of the matter we are of the considered opinion that the matter has to go to the original authority for de novo consideration, even in the case of M/s. Flama Gas India Ltd. We order accordingly. Both the orders are required to be set aside and the matters remanded to original authority for de novo consideration. The original authority shall follow the principles of Natural Justice by granting individual hearing to all the three appellants therein and decide the case in terms of law. The pleas put forth by the appellant including the point that the issue is now covered by the Tribunal's judgment in the case of M/s. Futura Polymers Ltd. should be taken into consideration. Thus all the three appeals are remanded to the original authority for de novo consideration.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 3 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

Pck Buderus (India) Tool vs Commissioner Of Customs, Chennai on 28 September, 2001

Further in Sewa Polymers v. C.C.E. 2000 (118) E.L.T. 621 (Tribunal) it was held that in matters of classification on the basis of parameters of chemistry in interpretation of those parameters the opinion of experts will prevail over a impression of a lay person and it would be patently wrong if such expert opinion was not relied on. It was also held that the assessees would be entitled to seek clarification as to in what manner the samples were examined and what methodology was adopted to arrive at the conclusion.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Uniworth Textiles Ltd. vs Commissioner, Customs Of Central ... on 1 September, 2003

While we agree with the ratio of the Futura Polymers (Supra) that department's Circulars can be retrospectively applied, in the instant case, the methods of calculation given in the 1999 and 2001 Circulars being the same and the period of dispute being 01.01.2000 to 28.02.2000, we hold that this is not a case of retrospective application.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 7 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Commissioner Of C. Ex. vs United Plastomers on 20 February, 2008

14. We find no force in the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant. While passing the impugned order, the Tribunal has concluded that the case of the respondent-assessee is clearly covered by the ratio of the decision in the case of Raja Rajeshwari Intl. Polymers Pvt. Ltd (supra) wherein it has been observed that the dealer agent falls within the purview of clearing and forwarding operations as the goods not directly or indirectly handled by him and no service tax is leviable on commission received by him on account of Del Credre Agency.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - R K Garg - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next