Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.61 seconds)Shri Rajeev Mardia And M/S. Mardia Steel ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Indore on 14 March, 2001
(A) The decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in Rajeev Mardia v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore reported in 2001 (43) RLT 533 (CEGAT-LB), was cited for the proposition that assessments made pending approval of classification list are deemed to be provisional even if the procedure under Rule 9B was not followed.
Samrat International (P) Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise Hyderabad on 21 September, 1990
The Tribunal in paragraph 4 of its judgment referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Samrat International (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise , in which the Supreme Court, in the context of a case where an assessee was clearing the goods by determining the duty himself and debiting the amount of duty in his personal account while the classification list was pending approval by the concerned authority without following the procedure contemplated under Rule 9B, held that the amount of duty paid by the assessee was obviously provisional and subject to the result of the final approval by the officer concerned. The Tribunal applying the said decision held that payment of duty under the Act can be treated as provisional under two situations. First situation is where payment is made in strict compliance with the condition in Rule 9B of the rules and the second one is the payment effected during finalization of classification list or price list. Such payment during the interregnum will also be provisional even if Rule 9B was not followed. In paragraph 6 of the judgment, it was held that the decision of the Supreme Court in Samrat International (P) Ltd. envisaged that payment of duty on provisional basis pending decision of classification list or price list would be treated as provisional even if the procedure contemplated by Rule 9B was not followed.
I.T.C.Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise, Patna on 10 December, 2002
(C) The decision of the Tribunal in ITC Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Patna , was cited for the proposition that finalization of provisional assessment was to be done in respect of all issues and not in piecemeal.
Section 4 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Voltas Limited vs Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... on 31 July, 2001
(B) The decision of this Tribunal in Voltas Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur reported in 2002 (149) E.L.T. 1047, was referred in Order to point out that in paragraph 5 of the judgment the Tribunal had referring to the earlier decision in Jay Chemical Industries v. Collector , held that assessment on RT 12 Return was an appealable order.
Jay Chemical Industries vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 11 June, 1997
(B) The decision of this Tribunal in Voltas Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur reported in 2002 (149) E.L.T. 1047, was referred in Order to point out that in paragraph 5 of the judgment the Tribunal had referring to the earlier decision in Jay Chemical Industries v. Collector , held that assessment on RT 12 Return was an appealable order.
Collector Of Central Excise vs Hind Lamps Ltd. on 10 November, 2000
(C) The decision of the Tribunal in Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Hind Lamps Ltd. was cited to point out that the Assistant Collector can direct the Superintendent to finalize assessments which can be done by the Superintendent under Rule 173-1 of the rules.
M/S. Agt Electronics Ltd. vs Commr. Of Cex, Coimbatore on 4 July, 2001
(D) The decision of this Tribunal in AGT Electronics Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore reported in 2001 (138) E.L.T. 90, was cited for the proposition that installation and training charges were not deductible from the assessable value when no evidence was produced to prove that such was actually rendered to the customers. These words reflected in the catch note in context of paragraph 6 of the Order do not appear in that paragraph. It appears that the catch note is formulated on the basis of the Tribunal not finding any infirmity in the Commissioner's Order in which the Commissioner had held that the installation/training charges were all includible in the assessable value, because, in the absence of evidence the contention of the assessee that they had actually provided services to the customers, could not be accepted.
Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... vs Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. on 14 September, 2001
(B) The decision of the Tribunal in Commissioner Central Excise, BBSR v. India Flogates Ltd. reported in 2000 (40) RLT 303 (CEGAT), was cited for the proposition that Section 11B of the Act would not be applicable to credit or adjustment of excess determinations paid as permissible under Rule 173-1 and there was no time limit for completion of assessment fixed under Rule 173-1. It was held that when assessments were provisional under Rule 173-B, 173-C read with Rule 9B or deemed to be so under Rule 173CC, the time limit prescribed under Section 11B would arise only from the date of payment of duty i.e. the finalization of assessment. However, the position would alter substantially after amendment made in Rule 173F w.e.f. 20-11-96 which brought the words "he shall himself assess the duty" for the words "he himself determine his liability for the duty" vide the Notification No. 36/96 which amended Rules 173-1 and 9B also.