Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (2.33 seconds)
Documents citing Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company ... vs Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... on 8 August, 2001

The Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... vs M/S.Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd on 10 July, 2018

(ii) In Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd., v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune reported in 2006 (203) ELT 360 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, dealing with a case, whereby, a cryptic and non-speaking order, the Tribunal upheld the order passed by the Commissioner, by applying the ratio of the decision of a Larger Bench in TISCO Ltd., v. CCE, Madras [2000 (118) ELT 104 (T-LB)], without recording any findings of fact. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while holding that it is not sufficient in a judgment, to give conclusions alone, but it is necessary to give reasons, in support of the conclusions arrived at, set aside the order of the Tribunal, holding that the findings recorded by the Tribunal therein, were cryptic and non-speaking, and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for taking a fresh decision, by a speaking order, in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity to both the parties.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

M/S.Nandhi Spinning Mills (P) Limited vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise on 8 November, 2017

(ii) In Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd., v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune reported in 2006 (203) ELT 360 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, dealing with a case, whereby, a cryptic and non-speaking order, the Tribunal upheld the order passed by the Commissioner, by applying the ratio of the decision of a Larger Bench in TISCO Ltd., v. CCE, Madras [2000 (118) ELT 104 (T-LB)], without recording any findings of fact. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while holding that it is not sufficient in a judgment, to give conclusions alone, but it is necessary to give reasons, in support of the conclusions arrived at, set aside the order of the Tribunal, holding that the findings recorded by the Tribunal therein, were cryptic and non-speaking, and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for taking a fresh decision, by a speaking order, in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity to both the parties.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Raj Prakash Chemicals Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 31 January, 2002

From this amendment however it does not follow that it has retrospective application. The exemption contained in the notification has to be construed strictly. This is the ratio of the Supreme Court in Bombay Oil Industries. The Supreme Court's judgment in Jain Engineering Co. v. CCE -1987 (32) E.L.T. 3 was concerned with the applicability of the exemption contained in Notification 281/76 and does not appear to us to lay down a proposition of law contrary to the settled law. Hence as a result of the amendment, ethyl acrylate utilised by the respondent in the manufacture of ethyl alcohol is rightly classifiable under Heading 39.16 and incorrectly classifiable under 39.06 (on the assumption that the classification claimed by the applicant is correct) would be available from that date. That is all that we can see the result of the application. It does not permit us to conclude that it cannot be available to ethyl acrylate manufactured prior to this date, classifiable under Heading 29.16.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Yes vs Represented By : Ms Anoli Patwa (Adv.) on 11 July, 2014

4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. From the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Tata Engineering and Locomotives Co Ltd vs CCE Pune [2010(256)ELT 56 (Bom)], relied upon by the appellant, it appears that appellant has an arguable case on merits. Therefore, after allowing the stay application the appeal itself is taken up for disposal. The order dtd 17/1/2014 passed by the first appellate authority is set aside and he is directed to restore the appeal to its original number in his office records and decide the issue on merits in denovo proceedings without insisting for any pre-deposit. Needless to say that appellant should be given an opportunity to explain their case before deciding the appeal in denovo proceeding. It is made clear that the Bench has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and has kept all the issues open for the first appellate authority.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Synergy Fertichem Pvt.Ltd vs State Of Gujarat on 23 December, 2019

In Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune, 2006 (203) ELT 360 (SC), the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where by a cryptic and non-speaking order, the Tribunal had upheld the order passed by Commissioner by applying the ratio of the decision of the Larger Bench in TISCO Ltd., without recording any findings of fact.
Gujarat High Court Cites 218 - Cited by 19 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

M/S Radhe Renewable Energy Development ... vs State Of Gujarat on 23 December, 2019

In Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune, 2006 (203) ELT 360 (SC), the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where by a cryptic and non-speaking order, the Tribunal had upheld the order passed by Commissioner by applying the ratio of the decision of the Larger Bench in TISCO Ltd., without recording any findings of fact.
Gujarat High Court Cites 218 - Cited by 0 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

Jainam Cables (India) Private Limited vs Union Of India on 23 December, 2019

In Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune, 2006 (203) ELT 360 (SC), the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where by a cryptic and non-speaking order, the Tribunal had upheld the order passed by Commissioner by applying the ratio of the decision of the Larger Bench in TISCO Ltd., without recording any findings of fact.
Gujarat High Court Cites 218 - Cited by 0 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

Subros Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 14 May, 2003

4. The learned Counsel also mentioned that Rule 2(a) of the Rules for the Interpretation of the Schedule is not invokable in the present matter; that car air-conditioner does never come into existence as an air-conditioner as different parts of the car air-conditioner get fitted in different parts of the car; for example the condenser assembly is mounted between the front bumper and car radiator whereas the compressor is mounted on the engine and control panel assembly on instrument panel; that as per Interpretative Rule 2(a), any reference in a Heading to goods shall be taken to include a reference to those goods, removed unassembled or dis-assembled; that thus by virtue of Rule 2(a), a consignment of the air-conditioning machine in an unassembled condition would be covered by or fall within the description 'Air-conditioning machine' under Heading 84.15; that, however, Rule 2(a) does not create a deeming fiction to the effect that the goods in unassembled condition would be deemed to be complete or finished goods; that thus, even after application of Rule 2(a), a consignment consisting of all parts of air-conditioning machine would continue to be covered by description "parts" while simultaneously qualifying for being equally covered by description "air-conditioning machine in unassembled condition"; that two contradictory statements cannot be true at the same time; that, however, a truthful statement may be expressed in more than one way and consequently collection of parts is covered by description; that in the present matter the question is not whether heap of parts would be covered by the description used in Heading 84.15; that the question is whether heap of parts would be covered by the description 'parts of air-conditioning machine' employed in the Notification; that for deciding the applicability of an exemption notification all one has to see is that the items are covered by the description given in the Notification and it is wholly irrelevant that they can legally be covered by another description as well; that thus the benefit of Notification No. 22/2000 cannot be denied to the Appellants. He relied upon the decisions in Tata Engg, & Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. CCE & C, Pune - 2001 (136) E.L.T. 1316 (T) and Majestic Auto Ltd. v. CCE - 2001 (130) E.L.T. 551 (T).
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Dr.J.A.Sachidanandan vs The Authorised Officer on 19 April, 2018

(ii) In Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd., v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune reported in 2006 (203) ELT 360 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, dealing with a case, wherein, by a cryptic and non-speaking order, the Tribunal upheld the order passed by the Commissioner, by applying the ratio of the decision of a Larger Bench in TISCO Ltd., v. CCE, Madras [2000 (118) ELT 104 (T-LB)], without recording any findings of fact. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while holding that it is not sufficient in a judgment, to give conclusions alone, but it is necessary to give reasons, in support of the conclusions arrived at, set aside the order of the Tribunal, holding that the findings recorded by the Tribunal therein, were cryptic and non-speaking, and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for taking a fresh decision, by a speaking order, in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity to both the parties.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next