Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.37 seconds)
Documents citing Bonanzo Engineering And Chemicals Pvt. ... vs Cce on 13 August, 1999

Lingraj Biscuits Pvt Ltd vs Bbsr Commissionerate on 30 October, 2025

Same view has been taken by the Apex Court in its judgment in the case of Bonanzo Engg. & Chemical P. Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2012 (277) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.). In view of this, we hold that the classification of the goods under sub-heading 1702 90 90 is not sustainable, as absolutely no evidence has been produced by the Department to show that the fructose content of the goods, in question, in dry state was 50%.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhagwati Foods Pvt. Ltd vs C.C.E. & S.T., Kanpur on 30 June, 2016

Same view has been taken by the Apex Court in its judgment in the case of Bonanzo Engg. & Chemical P. Ltd. vs. CCE reported in 2012 (277) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.). In view of this, we hold that the classification of the goods under sub-heading 17029090 is not sustainable, as absolutely no evidence has been produced by the Department to show that the fructose content of the goods, in question, in dry state was 50%.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Venugopal Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs Cce Pune Ii on 10 February, 2022

Same view has been taken by the Apex Court in its judgment in the case of Bonanzo Engg. & Chemical P. Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2012 (277) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.) = 2012- TIOL-25-SC-CX. In view of this, we hold that the classification of the goods under sub-heading 1702 90 90 is not sustainable, as absolutely no evidence has been produced by the Department to show that the fructose content of the goods, in question, in dry state was 50%.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Utsav Food Products vs Ahmedabad-Iii on 20 April, 2023

5|Page E/10612/2013 taken by the Apex Court in its judgment in the case of Bonanzo Engg. & Chemical P. Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2012 (277) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.). In view of this, we hold that the classification of the goods under sub-heading 1702 90 90 is not sustainable, as absolutely no evidence has been produced by the Department to show that the fructose content of the goods, in question, in dry state was 50%.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Ramakrishna Bakers Pvt. Ltd vs Cce & St, Kanpur on 3 March, 2015

Same view has been taken by the Apex Court in its judgment in the case of Bonanzo Engg. & Chemical P. Ltd. vs. CCE reported in 2012 (277) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.). In view of this, we hold that the classification of the goods under sub-heading 17029090 is not sustainable, as absolutely no evidence has been produced by the Department to show that the fructose content of the goods, in question, in dry state was 50%.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Shreewood Products Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 18 June, 2003

2. Shri Rakesh Malhotra, learned Advocate, submitted that the present application for restoration of appeal and modification of pre-deposit has been filed in view of change of circumstances; that the department has attached their properties worth Rs. 4,64,30,000/- which is much higher to the pre-deposit amount; that as now the department has attached their property, the requirement of pre-deposit has been complied with and as such their appeal deserves to be restored; that the said property be kept as security against the pre-deposit and in case they lose the appeal they shall be liable to pay interest; that the similar offer was accepted in the case of Air Control and Chemical Engineering Co. Ltd. v. CCE - 1993 (66) E.L.T. 663 (T).
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1