Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 101 (2.85 seconds)
Documents citing Commnr. Of Central Excise, Pondicherry vs M/S. Acer India Ltd on 24 September, 2004

Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd. Through Its ... on 30 March, 2016

We are of the view that another Coordinate Bench should not venture into the issues raised and even attempt to express any opinion on the merits of either of the views expressed in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. & Ors. (supra) and Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Acer Ltd. (supra). Rather, according to us, the questions referred should receive consideration of a Larger Bench for which purpose the connected papers may now be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhavya Construction Co., Mumbai vs Asst Cit Cir 21(1), Mumbai on 9 December, 2016

See further Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry v. ACER India Ltd., supra, pp. 183, 184).LORD SIMONDS call this "the one and only proper test." It is, therefore, not the function of a court of law to give to words a strained and unnatural meaning to cover loopholes through which the evasive tax- payer may find escape or to tax transactions which, had the Legislature thought of them, would have been covered by appropriate words.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 38 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Commnr. Of Central Excise, Indore vs M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd on 30 March, 2016

In the above situation, we are of the view that another Coordinate Bench should not venture into the issues raised and even attempt to express any opinion on the merits of either of the views expressed in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. & Ors. (supra) and Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Acer Ltd. (supra). Rather, according to us, the questions referred should receive consideration of a Larger Bench for which purpose the connected papers may now be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Lakshmi Access Communications Systems ... vs Bangalore-Cus on 18 August, 2025

(supra). It is a view consistent with what was held by the Federal Court and the Privy Council in Central Provinces and Berar (supra) Boddu Paidanna (supra) and Province of Madras (supra) and the decisions that followed thereafter including the decision in Voltas Limited (supra) and Atic Industries Limited v. H.H. Dewa. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise and ors - (1975) 1 SCC 499 = 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J444) (S.C.)
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Durlabh Chand D Jain , Director, M/S. ... vs Bangalore-Cus on 18 August, 2025

(supra). It is a view consistent with what was held by the Federal Court and the Privy Council in Central Provinces and Berar (supra) Boddu Paidanna (supra) and Province of Madras (supra) and the decisions that followed thereafter including the decision in Voltas Limited (supra) and Atic Industries Limited v. H.H. Dewa. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise and ors - (1975) 1 SCC 499 = 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J444) (S.C.)
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mahendra Kumar D Jain , Director, M/S. ... vs Bangalore-Cus on 18 August, 2025

(supra). It is a view consistent with what was held by the Federal Court and the Privy Council in Central Provinces and Berar (supra) Boddu Paidanna (supra) and Province of Madras (supra) and the decisions that followed thereafter including the decision in Voltas Limited (supra) and Atic Industries Limited v. H.H. Dewa. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise and ors - (1975) 1 SCC 499 = 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J444) (S.C.)
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Customs, Chennai vs M/S Hewlett Packard India Sales (P) Ltd on 30 August, 2007

4. While issuing notice this Court noted that the matter appeared to be covered by 3-Judge Bench's decision of this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry v. ACER India Ltd. (2004 (8) SCC 173). But it was contended by learned Additional Solicitor General that the question whether Hard Discs fitted to the Computer would be treated as a Software was not specifically dealt with in the said case. Notice was issued and the matter was listed for final hearing.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 9 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Hcl Infosystem Ltd. vs Cce on 2 May, 2005

The benefit of this decision was not available to the adjudicating authority as the impugned order has been passed before the pronouncement of the judgement in the case of Acer India Ltd. (supra). We also observe that the appellants have contended that they are also selling the software in CD and floppies and not only software, which is found or etched software i.e. implanted into a computer. This point also had not been taken into consideration by the adjudicating authority while confirming the demand.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 9 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next