Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.32 seconds)
Documents citing Nestle India Ltd. vs Cce on 15 April, 1997

Tecumseh Products India (P) Ltd. vs Commr. Of C. Ex. on 23 June, 2005

We also find that the discount given by the appellants is to be considered as a special discount granted to specific: contracting parties and is an admissible deduction as held by the Tribunal in the case of Nestle (India) Ltd. v. CCE and that of Swastik Fragrance v. CCE. The order of the Commissioner is not sustainable in law in the light of the judgments and discounts given by us supra. The same is set aside as not legal and proper. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Little Star Foods Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 23 March, 2006

9. The WRB had also an occasion to consider earlier, the classification of the product 'KIT KAT' in the case of Nestle India Ltd v. CCE wherein also there was use of vegetable oil. The item contained the ingredients waffer, sugar, milk powder, wheat flour, cocoa paste, cocoa powder, hydrogenated vegetable oil and process additives. Revenue had proposed to classify the item under heading 18.03 with description "chocolates in any form including drinking chocolate and other food preparations containing cocoa." The Tribunal negatived the claim for classification of the item as 'chocolate' or food preparation containing cocoa solely on the ground that the product does not satisfy the definition of chocolate under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and also ISI specifications. The Tribunal also considered the interpretative rules to HSN explanatory notes which was not in consonance with the tariff entry. The marketing pattern was also considered.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 12 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Klockner Supreme Pentaplast Ltd. vs Commr. Of C. Ex. on 29 June, 1998

In respect of Nestle India Ltd. case, he submitted that an application for rectification of mistake has been filed and the order has been reserved by the Tribunal. Finally, the learned Advocate submitted that unlike invoice issued by the manufacturers, original and duplicate copies of Bill of Entry remain with the department and on the basis of those copies, the department has re-constructed the triplicate copy of Bill of Entry and gave it to them.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... vs Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. on 19 July, 2006

5.1 The reasoning of the Commissioner (A) in the impugned order appears to be sound. The same is confirmed by the decision of the tribunal in the Nestle case. The fact that the above decision is under challenge by Revenue the Apex Court is not a proper ground for not following it, especially when the same has not been stayed. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in Revenue's appeal. The same is rejected.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 5 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1