Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.60 seconds)Garden Cotton Yarns Ltd., Garden Silk ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... on 13 February, 2001
It was contended that the larger Bench of the
Tribunal in the case of Vasania Silk Mills vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Surat, 1999 (114) ELT 222 decided the issue and held the `Taspa' yarn to be
classifiable under Chapter 54 and upheld the judgment of the Tribunal in the case
of Pratik Crimpers (supra) while rejecting the view taken in the case of
Dhamanwala Silk Mills (Supra) and since the judgment of the Pratik Crimpers's
case was later in point of time than the case of Dhamanwala Silk Mills (supra)
and since the Tribunal in the case of Pratik Crimpers(supra), had also
considered the Board's circular and the earlier contrary judgment in case of M/s
Garden Silk Mills Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., 1995(78) ELT 580(T), therefore, it was
incumbent on the part of the Tribunal to have considered and applied the ratio of
Pratik Crimpers's case (supra) read with the Board's circular by passing the
impugned order. She further submitted that it is incorrect to state that merely
because the process produces special effect slub/loop, the yarn is classifiable
under Heading No. 56.06 and that for the yarn to be classified under Heading No.
56.06, the presence of core yarn is mandatory and that there being no core yarn
in the product manufactured by the appellant, the same is not classifiable under
Heading No.56.06.
West Bengal Electricity Regulatory ... vs C.E.S.C. Ltd. Etc. Etc. on 3 October, 2002
In the case of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission vs.
C.E.S.C. Ltd. etc. etc., JT 2002(7) 578, this Court observed that the High Court
merely because it has unrestricted appellate power, should not interfere with the
considered order of the commission unless it is satisfied that the order of the
commission is perverse, not based on evidence or on misreading of evidence,
keeping in mind the fact that the commission is an expert body.
Asian Paints India Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise on 23 March, 1988
In the case of M/s Asian Paints India Ltd. vs. Collector of Central
Excise, (1988) 2 SCC 470, this Court held that the finding of fact arrived at on
relevant and valid materials cannot be easily interfered with.
Section 6 in Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Suman Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... on 12 October, 2001
It was contended that the larger Bench of the
Tribunal in the case of Vasania Silk Mills vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Surat, 1999 (114) ELT 222 decided the issue and held the `Taspa' yarn to be
classifiable under Chapter 54 and upheld the judgment of the Tribunal in the case
of Pratik Crimpers (supra) while rejecting the view taken in the case of
Dhamanwala Silk Mills (Supra) and since the judgment of the Pratik Crimpers's
case was later in point of time than the case of Dhamanwala Silk Mills (supra)
and since the Tribunal in the case of Pratik Crimpers(supra), had also
considered the Board's circular and the earlier contrary judgment in case of M/s
Garden Silk Mills Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., 1995(78) ELT 580(T), therefore, it was
incumbent on the part of the Tribunal to have considered and applied the ratio of
Pratik Crimpers's case (supra) read with the Board's circular by passing the
impugned order. She further submitted that it is incorrect to state that merely
because the process produces special effect slub/loop, the yarn is classifiable
under Heading No. 56.06 and that for the yarn to be classified under Heading No.
56.06, the presence of core yarn is mandatory and that there being no core yarn
in the product manufactured by the appellant, the same is not classifiable under
Heading No.56.06.
The Central Excise Act, 1944
M/S. Reliance Silicon (I) Pvt. Ltd vs The Collector, Central Excise, Thane on 6 November, 1996
In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel, relied on some
judgments of this Court. This Court in the case of Reliance Silicon (I) Pvt. Ltd.
vs. Collector, Central Excise, Thane, (1997) 1SCC 215, held that where the
classification of the excisable goods under different excise items involved a
question of highly technical nature requiring scrutiny of the chemical
characteristics of the goods, decisions of the CEGAT cannot be lightly interfered
with unless the findings are perverse or otherwise erroneous in law or based on
no evidence.