Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.33 seconds)
The Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S. Whirlpool Of India Ltd on 28 August, 2014 cites

Monika Electronics Ltd. And Ors. And ... vs Cce on 28 August, 2006

In the present case, we find that when the Department having accepted the decision in the case of Monica Electronics vs Cce reported in 2000 (123) ELT 1047 without demur, in the present case, on the same set facts, they are not entitled to agitate the same issue with regard to the assessee's claim of removal of moulds and dies without payment of duty following the procedure prescribed under Rule 57S(8) of the Rules.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 9 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Prestige Engineering(India) Ltd vs C.C.E on 1 September, 1994

ii) Whether the ruling of Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Prestige (India) Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, (1994 73 ELT 497 SC), that where the raw material is not supplied by the customer, there is no question of such manufacturer being termed as job worker, will not be applicable for the interpretation of sub rule 8 of Rule 57 S of Central Excise Rules, 1944?"
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 161 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Union Of India And Ors. vs Kaumudini Narayan Dalal And Anr. on 6 December, 2000

(see: The decisions of this Court in Union of India & Others v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal & Another - (2001) 10 SCC 231; Collector of Central Excise, Pune v. Tata Engineering & Locomotives Co. Ltd.- 2003 (158) ELT 130 (SC); Birla Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2005 (186) ELT 266 (SC); and Jayaswals Neco Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur - 2006 (195) ELT 142 (SC). It has been held in all these cases that if no appeal is filed against an earlier order or the earlier appeal involving the identical issue was not pressed by the Revenue, the Revenue is not entitled to press the other appeals involving the same question.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 171 - Full Document

Collector Of Central Excise, Pune vs Tata Engineering And Locomatives Co. ... on 4 November, 2003

(see: The decisions of this Court in Union of India & Others v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal & Another - (2001) 10 SCC 231; Collector of Central Excise, Pune v. Tata Engineering & Locomotives Co. Ltd.- 2003 (158) ELT 130 (SC); Birla Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2005 (186) ELT 266 (SC); and Jayaswals Neco Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur - 2006 (195) ELT 142 (SC). It has been held in all these cases that if no appeal is filed against an earlier order or the earlier appeal involving the identical issue was not pressed by the Revenue, the Revenue is not entitled to press the other appeals involving the same question.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 16 - R Pal - Full Document

M/S.Birla Corporation Ltd vs Commnr. Of Central Excise on 26 July, 2005

"In the instant case the same question arises for consideration and the facts are almost identical. We cannot permit the Revenue to take a different stand in this case. The earlier appeal involving identical issue was not pressed and was, therefore, dismissed. The respondent having taken a conscious decision to accept the principles laid down in Pepsico India Holdings Ltd. [2001 (130) E.L.T. 193] cannot be permitted to take the opposite stand in this case. If we were to permit them to do so, the law will be in a state of confusion and will place the authorities as well as the assessees in a quandary."
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 45 - B P Singh - Full Document

Jayaswal Neco Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nagpur on 23 January, 2008

(see: The decisions of this Court in Union of India & Others v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal & Another - (2001) 10 SCC 231; Collector of Central Excise, Pune v. Tata Engineering & Locomotives Co. Ltd.- 2003 (158) ELT 130 (SC); Birla Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2005 (186) ELT 266 (SC); and Jayaswals Neco Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur - 2006 (195) ELT 142 (SC). It has been held in all these cases that if no appeal is filed against an earlier order or the earlier appeal involving the identical issue was not pressed by the Revenue, the Revenue is not entitled to press the other appeals involving the same question.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 1 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1