Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 47 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing Prabhat Zarda Factory (India) Ltd. And ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Patna on 12 September, 2001

Larson And Toubro Ltd. vs Cce, Chennai on 22 June, 2006

11. We, therefore, hold that mere procuring or booking orders for the principal by an agent on payment of commission basis would not amount to providing services as "clearing and forwarding agent", within the meaning of the definition of that expression under Section 65(25) of the Finance Act, 1994, as has been held in the decision of the Tribunal in Prabhat Zarda Factory (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CCE Patna reported in 2002 (145) ELT : 2002 (50) RLT 326(CEGAT-KOL.). The decision in Prabhat Zarda Factory (Pvt.) Ltd. stands overruled to the extent of the aforesaid ratio laid down thereunder. The reference is answered accordingly. All these appeals will now be placed before the concerned Division Bench for decision on merits in the light of this judgment and in accordance with law.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 12 - Cited by 48 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S. Tamilnadu Petroproducts Ltd on 29 May, 2009

In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) distinguished the instant case on facts from the case dealt with in the Prabhat Zarda Factory case. The facts dealt with in the Prabhat Zarda factory case were that the agents in that case actually marketed the goods in addition to booking orders. In the instant case, the appellants had full-fledged marketing department headed by a General Manager. There were sales executives of the appellants who met the customers and did liaison work. The appellants did not require the marketing agent to perform of any of these functions. Accordingly, he held that the appellants were not liable to pay service tax in respect of M/s. Abirami Associates and three others, namely M/s. Industrial Chemical Agency, M./s. Bharat Mercantile Corporation and M/s. Krishna Trading Company during the respective periods in view of the fact that the sole functions of these marketing agents was to book orders for the appellants products and they were not C& F Agents as observed in Section 65(23) of the Finance Act, 1994. In the appeal filed by the Revenue strong reliance is placed on the various clauses of the agreement between the marketing agents and the appellants in support of their argument that the marketing agents not only procure orders for the appellants product but also carried out certain other functions.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Coal Handlers Pvt. Ltd. vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, Kolkata on 5 May, 2015

Notwithstanding the aforesaid dicta of the larger Bench, learned senior counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that judgment in Prabhat Zarda (supra) has not been overruled entirely, as is clear from the reading of para 11 of the judgment where the larger Bench has said that Prabhat Zarda (supra) 'stands overruled to the extent of the aforesaid ratio laid down thereunder'.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Saini Alloys Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 17 July, 2006

3. The contention of the applicants is that they are working as Commission Agent and relied upon the decision of the larger bench of the Tribunal in the case of Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai, reported in 2006 (3) S.T.R. 321 (Tri.- LB), to submit that larger bench of the Tribunal over-ruled the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Prabhat Zarda Factory (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CCE, Patna (supra).
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jitendra Nath And Sons vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 23 August, 2006

2. The contention of the applicant is that they are only selling agent as per the agreement entered with Raymond Ltd. The contention is also that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Prabhat Zarda Factory (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna (Supra) is overruled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai reported in 2006 (3) S.T.R. 321 (Tri.-LB).
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Super Poly Fabriks Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Punjab on 24 April, 2008

5. Mr. P.K. Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, drawing our attention to the impugned order, would submit that from a bare perusal thereof, it would be evident that the appellant merely accepts offer on behalf of its principal and its activities being not extended to the job of a clearing and forwarding agent, the impugned order cannot be sustained. It was urged that the authorities under the Act in determining the liabilities of the appellant had proceeded only on the premise that a processing agent would be a clearing and forwarding agent as was held in the case of Prabhat Zarda Factor (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CCE, Patna [2002 (145) ELT 222] which having subsequently been overruled by the larger Bench of the Tribunal, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 41 - S B Sinha - Full Document

M/S. Padam Chand Mutha & Co vs Cce, Jaipur-Ii on 20 January, 2009

He, further, submits that the impugned order was passed on the basis of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Prabhat Zarda Factory (India) Ltd. vs. CCE, reported in 2002 (145) ELT 222 (Tribunal) which was over ruled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. vs. CCE, reported in 2006 (3) STR 321 (Tri.-LB). Therefore, demand of tax for the extended period of limitation cannot be sustainable.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Globe Express Services Pvt. Ltd. ... vs M/S Taxtiles Craft on 22 February, 2025

Notwithstanding the aforesaid dicta of the larger Bench, learned senior counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that judgment in Prabhat Zarda (supra) has not been overruled entirely, as is clear from the reading of para 11 of the judgment where the larger Bench has said that Prabhat Zarda (supra) 'stands overruled to the extent of the aforesaid ratio laid down thereunder'.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next