Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (2.46 seconds)
Documents citing Commnr. Of Central Excise, Aurangabad vs M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd on 12 November, 2010

Fortune Marketing Private Limited vs Acc, Mumbai on 4 April, 2016

5. Learned Special Counsel took us through the investigations undertaken by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and also the grounds on which the adjudicating authority returned his finding of classification. He relied upon the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v. Hewlett Packard India Sales (P) Ltd [2007 (215) ELT 484 (SC); Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad v. Bajaj Auto Ltd [2010 (260) ELT 17 (SC)]; Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Connaught Plaza Restaurant (P) Ltd [2012 (286) ELT 321 (SC)]; of the Honble High Court of Gujarat in Swati Menthol & Allied Chem Ltd v. Jt. Dir., DRI [2014 (304) ELT 21 (Guj.)]
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Av Global Corporation P Ltd vs - on 28 February, 2022

Further, in support of their contention that misclassification does not amount to mis-declaration, the Noticee has relied upon the judgements of Densons Pultretaknik vs. CCE, 73 C/85759,86106,86107,86143,86144,86145,86146/2017, 88039/2018 CC Bangalore vs. Mahesh Raj, CCE vs. Ishaan Research Lab (P) Ltd., Chamundi Die Cast (P) Ltd. vs. CCE , Collector of Central Excise vs. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments, Cosmic Dye Chemical vs. Collector of Central Excise, Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad vs. Bajaj Auto Limited etc. and contended that to invoke extended period under Section 28 of the Customs Act, it has to be proved that there was a conscious or intentional act of collusion, wilful mis-statement or suppression of fact, on the part of the importer.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 60 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mitsubishi Electric Asia Pte Ltd vs Additional Director ... on 28 February, 2022

Further, in support of their contention that misclassification does not amount to mis-declaration, the Noticee has relied upon the judgements of Densons Pultretaknik vs. CCE, 73 C/85759,86106,86107,86143,86144,86145,86146/2017, 88039/2018 CC Bangalore vs. Mahesh Raj, CCE vs. Ishaan Research Lab (P) Ltd., Chamundi Die Cast (P) Ltd. vs. CCE , Collector of Central Excise vs. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments, Cosmic Dye Chemical vs. Collector of Central Excise, Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad vs. Bajaj Auto Limited etc. and contended that to invoke extended period under Section 28 of the Customs Act, it has to be proved that there was a conscious or intentional act of collusion, wilful mis-statement or suppression of fact, on the part of the importer.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 60 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mitsubishi Electric India P Ltd vs Additional Director ... on 28 February, 2022

Further, in support of their contention that misclassification does not amount to mis-declaration, the Noticee has relied upon the judgements of Densons Pultretaknik vs. CCE, 73 C/85759,86106,86107,86143,86144,86145,86146/2017, 88039/2018 CC Bangalore vs. Mahesh Raj, CCE vs. Ishaan Research Lab (P) Ltd., Chamundi Die Cast (P) Ltd. vs. CCE , Collector of Central Excise vs. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments, Cosmic Dye Chemical vs. Collector of Central Excise, Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad vs. Bajaj Auto Limited etc. and contended that to invoke extended period under Section 28 of the Customs Act, it has to be proved that there was a conscious or intentional act of collusion, wilful mis-statement or suppression of fact, on the part of the importer.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 60 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manoranjan Nayak vs Additional Director ... on 28 February, 2022

Further, in support of their contention that misclassification does not amount to mis-declaration, the Noticee has relied upon the judgements of Densons Pultretaknik vs. CCE, 73 C/85759,86106,86107,86143,86144,86145,86146/2017, 88039/2018 CC Bangalore vs. Mahesh Raj, CCE vs. Ishaan Research Lab (P) Ltd., Chamundi Die Cast (P) Ltd. vs. CCE , Collector of Central Excise vs. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments, Cosmic Dye Chemical vs. Collector of Central Excise, Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad vs. Bajaj Auto Limited etc. and contended that to invoke extended period under Section 28 of the Customs Act, it has to be proved that there was a conscious or intentional act of collusion, wilful mis-statement or suppression of fact, on the part of the importer.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 60 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajeev Sharma vs Additional Director ... on 28 February, 2022

Further, in support of their contention that misclassification does not amount to mis-declaration, the Noticee has relied upon the judgements of Densons Pultretaknik vs. CCE, 73 C/85759,86106,86107,86143,86144,86145,86146/2017, 88039/2018 CC Bangalore vs. Mahesh Raj, CCE vs. Ishaan Research Lab (P) Ltd., Chamundi Die Cast (P) Ltd. vs. CCE , Collector of Central Excise vs. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments, Cosmic Dye Chemical vs. Collector of Central Excise, Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad vs. Bajaj Auto Limited etc. and contended that to invoke extended period under Section 28 of the Customs Act, it has to be proved that there was a conscious or intentional act of collusion, wilful mis-statement or suppression of fact, on the part of the importer.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 60 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hiroaki Ashizawa vs Additional Director ... on 28 February, 2022

Further, in support of their contention that misclassification does not amount to mis-declaration, the Noticee has relied upon the judgements of Densons Pultretaknik vs. CCE, 73 C/85759,86106,86107,86143,86144,86145,86146/2017, 88039/2018 CC Bangalore vs. Mahesh Raj, CCE vs. Ishaan Research Lab (P) Ltd., Chamundi Die Cast (P) Ltd. vs. CCE , Collector of Central Excise vs. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments, Cosmic Dye Chemical vs. Collector of Central Excise, Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad vs. Bajaj Auto Limited etc. and contended that to invoke extended period under Section 28 of the Customs Act, it has to be proved that there was a conscious or intentional act of collusion, wilful mis-statement or suppression of fact, on the part of the importer.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 60 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next