Siemens Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 16 April, 1999
1) Siemens Ltd., Vs CCE [2002(53)RLT 1096(T-Mum)] [Departments appeal against this decision was dismissed by the SC vide 2003 (158)ELT A74 (SC)]
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.31 seconds)Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... vs A.Z. Electronics And Electronic ... on 7 August, 2001
2) CCE Vs A.Z. Electronics [2001(134) ELT 689(T-Mum)]
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Electronics And Controls on 27 May, 1998
In this connection, he refers to Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore Vs Electronics & Controls [1998(27) RLT 816 (CEGAT). It is submitted that the civil appeal filed by the assessee against the said decision of the Tribunal has been admitted by the apex court. Learned Counsel has also claimed support from the following decisions.
Electronics And Controls Power Systems ... vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise on 15 March, 2007
2) Final Order No 879/2010 dated 9.6.2010 in Appeal No E/782/2002 (Electronics and Controls Power Systems Pvt Ltd., Vs CCE Bangalore)
Cce vs Aidees Electronics Pvt. Ltd. on 22 June, 2006
3) CCE Chennai Vs Mumeric Electronics Pvt Ltd., [2001 (138) ELT 1202 (Tri-Che)]
In all the cases cited by the JCDR, complete UPS system including battery bought out from the market was cleared from the factory and the cost of battery was held to be includible in the assessable value of the UPSSs.
Supercold Refrigeration Systems Pvt. ... vs Cce on 17 November, 2004
3) Supercold Refrigeration Systems Pvt Ltd., Vs CCE [2005(119)ECR 58(T-Bang)]{Departments appeal against this decision was dismissed vide 2006(193)ELT A 23(SC)}
Goetze (India) Ltd. vs C.C.E. on 16 April, 2004
5) Goetze (India)Ltd., Vs CCE [2004(169)ELT 274(T-Del)]
The Reliance has been placed on the above decisions in support of the counsels plea that the cost of bought- out components cannot be included in the assessable value of the goods manufactured and cleared from the factory. It is submitted that the case developed by the Revenue in the present appeal is beyond the scope of the show-cause notice wherein it had not been alleged that UPSSs was cleared as a complete set with battery from the branch office seemingly reckoned as an extension of factory. It was also not alleged in the show-cause notice that manufacturing activities were undertaken in the branch offices
1