Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.23 seconds)Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs R.A. Castings Pvt. Ltd on 8 July, 2016
Appeal No(s).: E/75504-75506/2016-DB
10.3. A similar view has also been expressed by
the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of
Commissioner of C.Ex., Meerut v. R.A. Castings Pvt.
Ltd. [2012 (26) S.T.R. 262 (All.)].
The Central Excise Act, 1944
M/S Ambika International vs Union Of India And Another on 17 June, 2016
In taking this
view, we find support from the decision in the case
of Ambica International v. UOI rendered by the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana."
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S Brims Products on 15 September, 2008
Appeal No(s).: E/75504-75506/2016-DB
i. Shree Krishna Laxami Steel Udyog Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise and Service
Tax, [2024 (12) TMI-738-CESTAT KOLKATA]
ii. Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Brims
Products [2011 (271) ELT 184 (Pat)],
iii.Continental Cement Co. v. Union of India [2014
(309) E.L.T. 411 (All.)]
iv. Arya Fibres pvt. Ltd. & ors. v. CCE,
Ahmedabad-II [2014 (311) E.L.T. 529 (Tri. -
Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr on 17 December, 2002
Appeal No(s).: E/75504-75506/2016-DB
i. Shree Krishna Laxami Steel Udyog Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise and Service
Tax, [2024 (12) TMI-738-CESTAT KOLKATA]
ii. Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Brims
Products [2011 (271) ELT 184 (Pat)],
iii.Continental Cement Co. v. Union of India [2014
(309) E.L.T. 411 (All.)]
iv. Arya Fibres pvt. Ltd. & ors. v. CCE,
Ahmedabad-II [2014 (311) E.L.T. 529 (Tri. -
Section 110 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S Shingar Lamps Pvt. Ltd.& Anr on 22 March, 2010
vi. Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shingar
Lamps Private Ltd. [2010 (255) ELT 221 (P&H)]
vii.
Kumar Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs Commr. Of Cus. & C. Ex. on 28 October, 2002
In this regard, we rely on the decision of the
Tribunal at Ahmedabad in the case of Kumar Cotton
Mills (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Ahmedabad
[2008 (229) E.L.T. 273 (Tri. - Ahmd.)] wherein it has
been held that a demand of duty cannot merely be
fastened on the basis of some entries available in
Page 27 of 40
Appeal No(s).: E/75504-75506/2016-DB
private registers. For ready reference, the relevant
findings of the Tribunal in the aforesaid decision are
reproduced below: -
M/S Hindustan Machines vs Cce, Delhi on 14 February, 2013
A co-ordinate Bench of this
Tribunal has, in another decision, reported in the
E.L.T. issue of 5-8-2013 (after hearings in the
present appeals were concluded), once again
reiterated the same principles, after considering the
entire case-law on the subject [Hindustan Machines
v. CCE [2013 (294) E.L.T. 43]. Members of Bench
having hearing initially differed, the matter was
referred to a third Member, who held that
clandestine manufacture and clearances were not
established by the Revenue. We are not going into it
in detail, since the learned Counsels on either side
may not have had the opportunity of examining the
decision in the light of the facts of the present case.
Suffice it to say that the said decision has also
tabulated the entire case-law, including most of the
decisions cited before us now, considered them, and
come to the above conclusion.