Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.26 seconds)
Bata India Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 24 December, 2001 cites

M/S Falcon Tyres Ltd., Mysore vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise ... on 20 August, 2001

In the case of Falcon Tyres Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore , it was held that the calendered fabrics in process which were rubberised textured fabrics for the purpose of Central Excise Tariff were correctly classifiable under Heading No. 59.05 of the Central Excise Tariff as in force during the relevant time. The appellants in that case, as in the present case, were buying base fabric from outside sources. Such fabrics in that case were being coated with rubber in the calendering machine. The rubber content predominated in weight of such clandered fabric and the fabric was said to be unvulcanised. In the present case also, almost similar process was being adopted [refer para 3 of the order proposed by the learned Member (J)].
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 0 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Union Of India And Others vs Bata India Ltd. And Others on 14 September, 1993

Intermediate products also excisable but dutiable goods must be marketable--Actual sale not necessary--Civil suit no bar in excise cases The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.S. Verma and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.P. Bharucha on 24.9.1993 has dismissed the Special Leave Petition S.L.P. (C) No. 6164 of 1993 filed by M/s. Bata India Ltd. against the judgment and order dated 12th January 1993, passed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal No. 443 of 1978 (Union of India v. Bata India Ltd.) By its impugned order, the Calcutta High Court held that the three types of sheets, namely, herefit sheets, thermoplastic sheets and celluloid sheets from cotton and silk fabrics manufactured by the petitioner are excisable goods even though they are used as articles at the intermediary stage in the process of manufacture of final and different product i.e. footwear. There is no absolute bar of Civil Court's jurisdiction in excise cases and goods though specified in Central Excise Tariff are excisable unless shown to be non-marketable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

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

46. Finally, learned Advocate mentioned that the issue involved is not covered by the decision of the Calcutta High Court as , read with Order dated 24.9.1993 of the Supreme Court as reported in 1993 (68) ELT A 158; that firstly, the said decision did not relate to the rabberized fabrics as it related to different products that consequently, even though, several findings in the said judgment of the Calcutta High Court were against them, in the operative portion, the departmental appeal was dismissed; that they filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court which was pleased to take the view that since the operative part of decision was in their favour, it was not necessary to decide the points raised in the SLP; that the SLP was dismissed for these reasons by the Supreme Court; that due to these peculiar facts and circumstances, the SLP was dismissed and as Supreme Court neither considered nor decided the marketability aspect, the said decision of the Calcutta High Court cannot be relied upon. He also contended that larger period of limitation of five years is not applicable in the present matter, as the entire facts were known to the Department and particularly, in view of the decisions of the Calcutta High Court, that non-filing of Classification List and non-maintenance of statutory Central Excise records were due to their bona fide belief and impression that the impugned materials were not liable to excise duty, which was based on the findings of the Calcutta and Delhi High Court, that for the same reason, penalty of Rs. one crore is not imposable on the appellants.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 161 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Bmf Belting Ltd. vs Union Of India on 18 April, 1990

In BMF Beltings Ltd. v. Union of India , the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that if the product in question is not generally marketed and is not known in the market as a product by itself which can be bought and sold across the counter in the open market then it does not come within the category of the 'goods' as envisaged under Section 3. By observing so the Hon'ble High Court has held that the unvulcanised friction cloth used in manufacture of belts not capable of being generally marketed cannot be held to be goods.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

M/S. Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs C.C.E., Calcutta-I on 11 January, 2001

16. To the same effect is the decision of Eastern Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Chloride Indus. Ltd. v. CCE, Calcutta . By taking note of the various decisions of the Supreme Court that the burden to prove marketability of the goods is on the Revenue. The Tribunal has observed that there was utter lack of evidence from the department about the marketability of the goods on which the Revenue wants to levy the duty.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta Cites 35 - Cited by 15 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next