Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.44 seconds)
Documents citing Collector Of Central Excise vs Priyadarshini Spg. Mills Ltd. on 30 April, 1990

Pasupati Spg. And Wvg. Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 8 June, 2000

In Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. Priyadarshini Spg. Mills Ltd. - 1997 (94) E.L.T. 287 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had noted that the Tribunal had held in that case that the raw materials used in the disputed yarn were not synthetic staple fibre and that the view of the Tribunal in that case had been accepted by the Board and a Circular No. 23/90 dated 1-11-1990 had been issued.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Collector Of Central Excise, Modern ... vs Vardhan Syntex, Eastern Spinning Mills ... on 23 March, 1991

In these premises the decision in Priyadarshini case clearly lays down that the yarn containing non-cellulosic waste can only fall for classification under TI 18 III(i) as it lacked homogeneity. The assessees herein do not cut synthetic staple fibres--they do not have any machinery for cutting nor do they hold a licence to cut staple fibres and the material used is also not synthetic staple fibres.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 30 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Madhumilan Syntex Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 29 June, 1993

A - to the show cause notice, which according to the petitioners is the final demand raised against them. It is also contended that proper and adequate opportunity has not been and would not be afforded to the petitioner to reply to the show cause notice as one month's time, which has to be given for replying to the show-cause notice as per the Government of India instructions vide circular dated 2-7-1978 has not been given and instead only 15 days' time has been given for reply. It is further alleged that the Asstt. Collector had made no provision in the schedule of hearing for recording of relevant evidence and this also amounts to denial of opportunity. It is also alleged that the Assistant Collector is biased against the petitioner and in support of this contention it is stated that despite the earlier pronouncements of the Tribunal in Collector of Central Excise v. Priyadarshini Spinning Mills Ltd. 1990 (50) E.L.T. 145 (Tribunal) again the show cause notice is issued on the ground that the material used by the petitioners is fibre. A Trade Notice No. 158/90 dated 19-11-1990 is also pressed into service in support of the contention that the department has accepted that waste is not fibre.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S.M. Kannappa Automobiles (P) Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 27 November, 1990

3. Shri Ravishankar, the learned C.A., assailed the reasoning of the authorities below in this regard and also placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Mahaveer Spg. Mills Ltd. and the ruling of the Madras High Court in the case of M.R.F. Ltd. v. C.C.E. urged that the ratio of the said rulings would squarely govern the instant case as well.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1