Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (2.82 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of C. Ex., Nagpur vs Abhideep Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. on 21 February, 2002

Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Rane Brake Linings Ltd. on 15 September, 2003

Commissioner of C.Ex., Nagpur v. Abhideep Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Holding -2002 (143) E.L.T. 70 (Tri.- Mumbai) "Refund - Limitation - Duty paid under protest - Duty paid while filing appeal to contest liability is payment of duty under protest -Refund not hit by normal limitation period - Para 83 of Apex Court judgment in Mafatlat Industries - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) holding "It is difficult to imagine that a manufacturer would pay duty without protest even when he contests the levy of duty, its rate, classification or any other aspect", relied on - Second proviso to Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Neco Centricast on 26 February, 2004

6. I further observe that the Tribunal had come to the said conclusion after a detailed analysis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries reported in 1996 (17) RLT 907 (S.C. LB) = 1997 (89) RLT 247. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio of the Tribunal's decision in the case of CCE, Nagpur v. Abhideep Chemicals, I hold that the Commissioner (Appeals) was light in holding that the claim could not be rejected as time barred.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

4. Whether Order Is To Be Circulated To ... vs M/S. Shivraj Tobacco Co. Pvt.Ltd on 5 February, 2009

It is pleaded before me on behalf of the appellants that it is established from the un-controverted authentic literature and trade opinions that except for different varieties of perfumes and menthol which evaporate and do not add their weight and sweetening materials used for flavour and taste, all the products predominantly contain various parts of plants. It is also pleaded before me that the products come in the description of preparation which word has been interpreted in their favour by the Supreme Court in U.O.I. Vs. Pesticides Mfg. & Formulation Association of India reported at 2002 (146) ELT 19 and order of the Tribunal in C.C. Ex Sukhjit Starch & Chemical Ltd. reported at 194 (72) ELT 753 & in C.C.Ex Vs. Mazda Industrial Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. reported at 2000 (124) ELT 475, which are also cited in para B-1 of the defence brief. I have also examined legality of classifying these products on sub-heading no.2107.91 and later in sub-heading no.2108.99. I agree with the submission of the appellants that Chapter 20 & Sub-heading No.2001.10 is a specific entry for Preparation of vegetables; fruits, nuts or other parts of plants and classification in this sub-heading is not excluded if they are not vegetables and fruits in the common parlance provided they are prepared from parts of plants. On the other hand Heading 21.07 and later Heading Nod.21.08 is a residual entry described as Edible Preparations not elsewhere specified.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Modipon Fibres Company vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 13 October, 2003

The above said observations of the Apex Court has been followed by the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Nagpur v. Abhideep Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., 2002 (143) E.L.T. 70 and Pace Marketing Specialities Ltd. v. CCE, Ghaziabad, 2003 (157) E.L.T. 36. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding the refund claim of the appellants to be time-barred, cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cce vs Prabhat Chemicals on 26 October, 2005

I have carefully gone through the facts of the case on records, submissions made through appeal memo. I find that in the instant case the issue is to be decided is only relevant date. I find that the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Commissioner v. Abhideep chemicals Private Limited held that "duty paid while filing appeal to contest liability is payment of duty under protest and refund not hit by normal limitation period by relied upon Para 83 of Apex Court judgment in Mafatlal Industries -, holding that it is difficult to imagine that a manufacturer would pay duty without protest even when he contests the levy of duty, its rate, classification or any other aspect.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Kohinoor Industries on 1 March, 2004

4. I also note that, when the matter is under litigation, the payment made during the litigation has to be treated as the payment made under protest, as held by the CEGAT in the case of CCE Nagpur Vs. Abhideep Chemicals reported in 2002 (49) RLT 984 (Tri.Mum). In the said judgment, the Supreme Court decision in the case of Mafatlal Industries reported in 2002 - TaxindiaOnline - - SC has been analysed in detail and held that, such a payment is the payment made under protest, notwithstanding, the procedure of Rule 243B was not followed.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1