Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.19 seconds)
Documents citing Kurt-O-John Shoe Components (I) Ltd. vs Commr. Of C. Ex. & Cus. on 1 January, 2003

Narasus Exports vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Salem on 24 November, 2015

4.?Learned Advocate submits that as a 100% E.O.U., clearances effected by them to DTA were within the permissible limit as per EXIM Policy. Rule 19 does not exclude 100% E.O.U. from its purview. He also relies on the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Kurt-O-John Shoe Components (I) Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex & Cus., Noida, reported in 2003 (154) E.L.T. 651 (Tri.-Del.)
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Winsome Yarns Ltd vs Cce, Chandigarh on 16 June, 2009

6. We have carefully considered the submissions from both sides. There is no dispute before us that the clearances made by the appellants is beyond the limit prescribed by the Development Commissioner. In respect of such clearances duty shall be payable, if they are made to general category of buyers. In the present case, the appellant have chosen to supply to special category of buyers covered under Rule 19(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. We agree with the submission of the learned Advocate that Rule 19 does not exclude the clearances from 100% E.O.U. from its purview. The decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Kurt-O-John Shoe Components (I) Ltd. and Paras Fab Internatioanl (supra) support the contention of the learned Advocate.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1