Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.28 seconds)Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950
Section 2 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
Titan Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Gst&Amp;Cce(Chennai ... on 30 July, 2019
3.2 Thus the activity of deemed manufacture having taken place at
the Showrooms and CFAs, the demand of excise duty is legal proper.
Further in the appellants' own case, for clearances made from Hosur
factory, on the very same issue, TITAN INDUSTRIES Vs CCE 2007
(217) ELT 423 (Tri- Chennai) the appellant had admitted their liability
and the finding of the Commissioner that the activity amounts to
manufacture was upheld by the Tribunal. The present argument by
23
E/42026-42059/2014
the appellant that the activity does not amount to manufacture
therefore cannot be accepted.
Commissioner Of Customs vs Panchsheel Soap Factory on 13 February, 2019
The Tribunal followed the decision in the case of Panchsheel Soap
Factory (supra).
The Legal Metrology Act, 2009
Section 4 in Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Lakme Lever Private Limited , Mumbai vs Principle Commissioner Of Income ... on 3 April, 2023
▪ Lakme Lever Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai [2000 (10) TMI 96
CEGAT, Mumbai]
▪ CCE vs. Rafique Malik [2018 (360) ELT 454 (Bom.)]
B. Section 2(f)(iii) does not apply to goods manufactured
under ABE Notification
B.1. The concept of 'deemed manufacture' in terms of Section 2(f)(iii)
read with Third Schedule of the Excise Act would not apply to goods
manufactured at area-based exemption availing factories for the
reason that, if the concept is applied, it would make the goods dutiable
which are otherwise exempt.
State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs Subhash Arjundas Kataria on 26 August, 2011
The
said issue was subject to conflicting views in the a number of decisions
and was subsequently referred to a larger bench in State of
Maharashtra vs Subhash Arjundas Kataria [2012 (275) ELT 289
(SC)].