Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.35 seconds)

M/S.New Central Jute Mills Co.Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 26 May, 2014

7. We observe that the Tribunal in the case of Shiva Essential Oils & Chemicals v. CCE, Noida cited supra, has not considered the decision in Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co.Ltd.s case nor was it cited before them. Loss, whether it occurs due to unavoidable accident or otherwise, is a loss. So long as such loss occurs in storage, it is a loss referred to in Section 35B proviso. The artificial distinction between one type of loss and another sought to be made in Shiva Essential Oils & Chemicals case does not appear to be correct in view of the unambiguous language of Section 35B. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear appeals arising out of the orders of Commissioner (Appeals) where the appeals relate to loss of goods either in transit or in storage as stated in proviso (a) to Section 35B of the Central Excise Act.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 5 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Pepsico (I) Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... on 27 September, 2022

The artificial distinction between one type of loss and another sought to be made in Shiva Essential Oils & Chemicals's case does not appear to be correct in view of the unambiguous language of Section 35B. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear appeals arising out of the orders of Commissioner (Appeals) where the appeals relate to loss of goods either in transit or in storage as stated in proviso (a) to Section 35B of the Central Excise Act."
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pepsi Co (I) Holdings Pvt Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Esxise- Mumbai ... on 27 September, 2022

The artificial distinction between one type of loss and another sought to be made in Shiva Essential Oils & Chemicals's case does not appear to be correct in view of the unambiguous language of Section 35B. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear appeals arising out of the orders of Commissioner (Appeals) where the appeals relate to loss of goods either in transit or in storage as stated in proviso (a) to Section 35B of the Central Excise Act."
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pyarelal Coir Products (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 5 December, 2006

4.1 The learned Counsel also relied on the decision in Shiva Essential Oils & Chemicals v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida , in which it was held that the discretion conferred on the Collector of Central Excise to remit the duty, if the goods are lost or destroyed by an unavoidable accident cannot be exercised arbitrarily, but has to be exercised judicially and according to law.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Supercoats Industries vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 20 September, 2004

The artificial distinction between one type of loss and another sought to be made in Shiva Essential Oils & Chemicals's, case does not appeal to be correct in view of the unambiguous language of Section 35B. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear appeals arising out of the orders of Commissioner (Appeals) where the appeals relate to loss of goods either in transit or in storage as stated in proviso (a) to Section 35B of the Central Excise Act.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Chlorochem Industries vs Cce on 19 November, 2007

2. In this case, there is no dispute regarding incidents of fire in the factory. The Tribunal in the case of Shiva Essential Oils & Chemicals v. CCE Noida held that discretion is on the Commissioner of Central Excise to remit the duty if goods were destroyed by unavoidable accident and in a similar situation, allowed the request of remission of duty in case goods were destroyed in fire.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1