Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.32 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Meneta Automotive Components Pvt. ... vs Cce & St, Rohtak on 18 March, 2015

Gagandeep Singh Alias Gagandeep vs Ministry Of Consumer Affairs Food And ... on 5 March, 2024

"It is admitted fact that duty free raw material was imported by appellant in terms of Customs Notification above. Had the raw material not been imported, the appellant would have been at par with domestic players. Peculiarly appellant availed customs duty exemption at the cost of exchequer. Scrap was inbuilt in the duty free material imported. Ignorance of Customs duty forgone on the scrap aspect would place domestic players in disadvantageous position and shall run counter to the principle laid down in Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products - 2000 (115) ELT 20 (SC). Therefore, as a course of equality before law, we direct the appellant to make deposit Rs.40 lakhs within four weeks from today and make compliance on 26-02-2014. We may add that an interim order has no precedential value and we are guided by the ratio laid down by Apex Court in the case of Empire Industries - 1985 (20) ELT 179 (SC), Dunlop India Ltd. - 1985 (19) ELT 22 (SC), Benara Valves Ltd. 2006 (204) ELT 513 (SC) and Vijay Prakash D. Mehta - 1989 (39) ELT 178 (SC)."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Amritpal Singh And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 18 March, 2024

"It is admitted fact that duty free raw material was imported by appellant in terms of Customs Notification above. Had the raw material not been imported, the appellant would have been at par with domestic players. Peculiarly appellant availed customs duty exemption at the cost of exchequer. Scrap was inbuilt in the duty free material imported. Ignorance of Customs duty forgone on the scrap aspect would place domestic players in disadvantageous position and shall run counter to the principle laid down in Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products - 2000 (115) ELT 20 (SC). Therefore, as a course of equality before law, we direct the appellant to make deposit Rs.40 lakhs within four weeks from today and make compliance on 26-02-2014. We may add that an interim order has no precedential value and we are guided by the ratio laid down by Apex Court in the case of Empire Industries - 1985 (20) ELT 179 (SC), Dunlop India Ltd. - 1985 (19) ELT 22 (SC), Benara Valves Ltd.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jagjit Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 23 April, 2024

"It is admitted fact that duty free raw material was imported by appellant in terms of Customs Notification above. Had the raw material not been imported, the appellant would have been at par with domestic players. Peculiarly appellant availed customs duty exemption at the cost of exchequer. Scrap was inbuilt in the duty free material imported. Ignorance of Customs duty forgone on the scrap 10 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 29-04-2024 22:00:02 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041142 CWP No.8238 of 2024 (O&M) 11 2024:PHHC:041142 aspect would place domestic players in disadvantageous position and shall run counter to the principle laid down in Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products - 2000 (115) ELT 20 (SC). Therefore, as a course of equality before law, we direct the appellant to make deposit Rs.40 lakhs within four weeks from today and make compliance on 26-02-2014. We may add that an interim order has no precedential value and we are guided by the ratio laid down by Apex Court in the case of Empire Industries - 1985 (20) ELT 179 (SC), Dunlop India Ltd. - 1985 (19) ELT 22 (SC), Benara Valves Ltd. 2006 (204) ELT 513 (SC) and Vijay Prakash D. Mehta - 1989 (39) ELT 178 (SC)."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Customs (Imports) vs Vuppalamritha Magnetic Components Ltd on 19 May, 2016

2.8. Revenue relied on the HSN classification in respect of tariff heading 85.17 to support its case stating that the goods manufactured by the respondent falls therein without granting any exemption to the goods imported. Ld. D.R supported the order of adjudicating authority going through the decision of the Chief Commissioners Conference as has been recorded in para-21 of the adjudication order. He further relied on the decision of Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of VuppalamrithaMagnetic Components Ltd. Vs CCE& ST Hyderabad as reported in 2013-TIOL-1011-CESTAT-BANG to submit that although it is a stay order but it still holds field in favour of the Revenue. He also relied on the decision of Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACD Communication Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2011-TIOL-236-CESTAT-MAD = 2011 (263) ELT 744 (Tri.-Chennai) to submit that the grant of Exemption Notification No.21/2005-Cus. dt. 1.3.2005 is not available against the basic plea of manufacturing mobile handsets or cellular phones by respondent which is not its case.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1