Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (1.29 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Salora International Ltd vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, New Delhi on 7 September, 2012

Krishan Kalani Chief Operating Officer vs Ce & Cgst Noida on 16 October, 2025

27. The facts in the case of Sony India Ltd. (supra) may be distinguished in this respect. In that case, the assessee had imported different parts of television sets in 94 different consignments. The said parts were imported separately in bulk, and thereafter, the process of matching, numbering and assembling was carried out once they were in the possession of the assessee. Therefore, it may be seen that what the assessee had imported in that case were merely various parts which could not yet be identified and distinguished as individual Television Receivers such as the parts transported by the appellant in this case. The said decision is, therefore, distinguishable on facts.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kevin Infotech Pvt Ltd vs Ce & Cgst Noida on 16 October, 2025

27. The facts in the case of Sony India Ltd. (supra) may be distinguished in this respect. In that case, the assessee had imported different parts of television sets in 94 different consignments. The said parts were imported separately in bulk, and thereafter, the process of matching, numbering and assembling was carried out once they were in the possession of the assessee. Therefore, it may be seen that what the assessee had imported in that case were merely various parts which could not yet be identified and distinguished as individual Television Receivers such as the parts transported by the appellant in this case. The said decision is, therefore, distinguishable on facts.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anthony Joseph Manager Accounts vs Ce & Cgst Noida on 16 October, 2025

27. The facts in the case of Sony India Ltd. (supra) may be distinguished in this respect. In that case, the assessee had imported different parts of television sets in 94 different consignments. The said parts were imported separately in bulk, and thereafter, the process of matching, numbering and assembling was carried out once they were in the possession of the assessee. Therefore, it may be seen that what the assessee had imported in that case were merely various parts which could not yet be identified and distinguished as individual Television Receivers such as the parts transported by the appellant in this case. The said decision is, therefore, distinguishable on facts.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Customs (Import) vs M/S Welkin Foods on 6 January, 2026

29. GRI 2 (a) is expanding the terms of a heading to include (i) incomplete or unfinished goods, as long as the essential character of the complete or finished article is obvious from the goods as presented at the time of importation; or (ii) goods presented in unassembled or disassembled form. [See Collector of Customs, Bangalore & Anr v. Maestro Motors Ltd. & Anr, reported in (2005) 9 SCC 412, Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi v. Sony India Limited, reported in (2008) 13 SCC 145 and Salora International Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 662]
Supreme Court of India Cites 62 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jhonson Lifts Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs -Ii Chennai on 9 January, 2026

29. GRI 2 (a) is expanding the terms of a heading to include (i) incomplete or unfinished goods, as long as the essential character of the complete or finished article is obvious from the goods as presented at the time of importation; or (ii) goods presented in unassembled or disassembled form. [See Collector of Customs, Bangalore & Anr v. Maestro Motors Ltd. & Anr, reported in (2005) 9 SCC 412, Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi v. Sony India Limited, reported in (2008) 13 SCC 145 and Salora International Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 662]
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 61 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kishore Zarda Factory vs Allahabad on 31 July, 2019

Reference can also be made to the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision in the case of Felvel International v. Commissioner of Central Excise reported as MANU/DE/2747/2015. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court is against the majority decision of the Tribunal. Originally there was difference of opinion between two Members as regards the findings of clandestine removal of the goods. The third Member, hearing the difference of opinion, agreed with Member(Technical) and held against the assessee. The said majority decision was appealed against before Hon'ble Delhi High Court. While disposing of the appeal, the Hon'ble High Court set aside the majority decision and adopted the minority decision as the correct decision. It was observed that the allegation of clandestine removal made on the basis of entries in the ledger account cannot be upheld inasmuch as there was no direct evidence of manufacture of such huge quantities of Air-conditioners in the assessee's factory. In the absence of any evidence of procuring excess raw material required for production of such a huge number of Air-conditioners and in the absence of any statement of employees and in the absence of any identification of the buyers, the entire case of the Revenue was held to be having been made on the basis of doubts and presumptions. After taking into consideration the entire precedent decisions, the Hon'ble High Court observed that there is no abatement made by the department to substantiate the allegation of manufacture of Air-conditioners inasmuch as no evidence has been produced to show that the basic raw material required for manufacturing was procured by the appellant. The ratio of the said decision of the Hon'ble High Court is fully applicable to the facts of the present case.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Euro Footwears Ltd. vs Kanpur on 6 September, 2018

He also draws my attention to Tribunal's decision in the case of Monnet International Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi reported at 2017 (3) GSTL 380 (Tri.- Del.) wherein the refunds filed beyond the period of limitation as provided under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were allowed by observing that at the relevant time there was no authority of law to collect service tax on the activity carried out by the assessee and as such retention of the unauthorized collected amount by the Department is not permissible.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next