Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.38 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Udayani Ship Breakers Ltd vs Commnr. Of Customs & Central Excise, ... on 8 February, 2005

Commissioner, Customs ... vs V K Metcast Pvt Ltd on 31 July, 2023

then under Rule 3(ii) the value shall be determined by proceeding sequentially through Rules 5 to 8 of the Rules. Conversely if the transaction value can be determined under Rule 4(1) and does not fall under any of the exceptions in Rule 4(2), there is no question of determining the value under the subsequent Rules.‖ Later, in Choudhry Ship Breakers vs. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad (supra) the Court observed:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Madhav Industrial Corporation vs Bhavnagar on 29 September, 2025

4.2 Learned AR has relied on the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of CCE, Rajkot V/s. Saibaba Ship Breaking Corporation reported at 2002 (140) ELT 135 (Tri-Mumbai) and decision of this Tribunal in the case of Triveni Ship Breakers Vs. CCE, 2024 (18) CENTAX 250 (Tri-Ahmedabad) to support his case. The decision in the case of Triveni Ship Breakers relates to classification of used batteries wherein, classification matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to reconsider the issue a fresh by going into all the claims by the appellant as regards the nature of the products. We find that the decision in the case of Saibaba Ship Breaking Corporation is primarily related to availability of Modvat credit on inputs such as fuel oil and food stuff on board. However, we find that para-13 of this order discusses that the items such as bunker, oil, stores, etc. are removed before actual ship breaking starts. This is so because presence of these items will endanger working of the Labour/ staff there. Relevant portion of para-13 of the said order is reproduced below: -
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

C.C. vs Lucky Steel Industries And Y.S. ... on 21 March, 2007

A similar decision was given in the case of Chaudhary Ship Breakers v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad wherein it was held that mutual reduction of price after import of goods into India by executing addendum to original agreement is not acceptable when there was no provision regarding price variation in the memorandum of agreement and the reduction in price was carried out after the import of the ships.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

) M/S. A.N. Impex vs Commr. Of Customs (Port), Kolkata on 27 March, 2012

iii) Vinayaka allies Pvt. Ltd.VsCommissioner- 2009(246) ELT540(Tri.) The fact which is acknowledged by the DRI officers is that 78 Bales were totally damaged. The contention is that not a single piece of evidence in form of Invoice or Sale document has been recovered from M/s. Ma Vabatarini Enterprises, not did they disclose any such evidence as authentication/correctness of the entries contained in the Purchase Register in the said firm. Shri Deepak Das's statement has been relied upon but the said statement has no evidentiary value since he is not a party to this proceeding and even after allowing cross-examination by the Adjudicating Authority, the Department did not produce him for cross-examination. Therefore, the said Register and the Statement of Shri Deepak Das have no evidentiary value and the same should be discarded from this proceeding. Re-determination of price of the imported goods is not permissible based on the domestic price of the said goods as has been rightly held by the Hon'ble supreme Court of India in Udayani Ship Breakers Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, 2006 (195) ELT 3 (SC). It is settled by innumerable decisions of the Apex Court that undervaluation cannot be alleged or proved without evidence about comparable imports. No such evidence has been, disclosed in the Show Cause Notice. There is also no evidence disclosed that the importer had paid any amount more than that mentioned in the invoice(s) either in kind or in any other manner. Reference may be made to the following decisions:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M/S Amara Raja Electronics Ltd.. & vs The Commissioner on 16 February, 2016

3. On behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel Ms Kamana Srikanth explained that the services were received by appellants from ARBL and M/s Mangal Precision Products Ltd.( MPPL) at their branch offices in Chennai, Hyderabad and Mumbai. She submitted that ARBL and MPPL provided office space on a rental basis to the appellants. So also, they provided requisites for running an office, such as telephone, electricity, and other office expenses. Services like IT related services and manpower services were also provided. The branch of the appellant company was thus functional and integrally connected with the factory, as the branch provided the marketing support in connection with the manufacturing operations. The department has denied the credit alleging that these services provided by ARBL and MPPL do not have a nexus with the manufacture of finished products, and that these transactions are only in the nature of sharing of common expenses. She laid thrust on the purchase orders and argued that these documents would reveal the nexus between the services availed at branch and the factory. The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment laid in CCE Bangalore, III, Vs Standzen Toyotetsu India(P)Ltd -2011(23) STR  444(Karnataka), Wipro Ltd. Vs CCE Bangalore  2013(289) ELT 184, Surani ceramics Ltd Vs CCE Rajkot  2012(283) ELT 388(Tri.Ahmd) and CCE, Nagpur Vs Ultratech Cement Ltd. -2010(260) ELT 369(Bom). In addition, she submitted that in the appellant own case appeal No.E/22613/2014-SM, the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the appellants vide Order dated 17-12-2015.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Judgment Reserved On Judgment ... vs Customs Excise And Service Tax

In this regard, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohtesham Mohd., Ismail vs. Spl., Director [2007 (220) ELT 3 (SC)]; Paras Ship Breakers Ltd., vs. CCE [2007 (217) ELT 321 (SC)]; and decision of this Court in the case of Caress Industries (P) Ltd., vs. CESTAT [2015 (322) ELT 828(Mad). The next submission is that this Court will not interfere in http://www.judis.nic.in 13 the order passed by the Tribunal even if a different view is possible on the same material, unless the order is perverse.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - T S Sivagnanam - Full Document
1   2 Next