Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.21 seconds)
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Richardson & Crudas (1972) Ltd., ... on 25 September, 2001 cites

Cce vs Indcon Structurals (P) Ltd. on 12 October, 2000

This aspect has to be examined by the original authority to whom all these matters are remanded for de novo consideration in the light of judgment of the Apex Court rendered in CCE Jaipur v. MAN STRUCTURALS LTD (supra) and the Tribunal ruling in the case of CCE v. SAE (India) LTD. Thus, the impugned orders are set aside and matters are remanded to the original authority for de novo consideration. The original authority shall put the assessees to notice about the evidence of marketability etc., so that they can counter it with rebuttal evidence. The appellants shall be heard before a judicious speaking order is passed."
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 3 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

L And T Ltd. vs Cce on 26 February, 1999

They continued to remain in the same form and it was recognised in the trade as such. Therefore, there was no evidence of marketability produced by the Revenue and such burden has not been discharged for its classification under various headings of the CETA. It is stated that this is the question of fact and without evidence having been produced by the revenue, revenue is not deemed to have discharged their burden regarding excisability and duty liability. It is stated that the Tribunal took up the case of L & T v. CCE & Customs, Bhubaneshwar, CCE Bombay & CCE Raipur which was also remanded by a common order by this Bench vide final order No. 1506 to 1509/01 dated 4.9.01. In the cited case, the Tribunal have opined that the issue is required to be reconsidered by the original authorities as it required examination of facts and more particularly, the evidence which is required to be adduced by the revenue regarding marketability and dutiability and various other pleas raised by the appellants, particularly, eligibility of modvat credit, duty to be considered as cum duty benefit and benefit be granted and various other deductions and valuation aspect. They also contended that they held bonafide belief that the item was not covered under the Tariff Act. This plea has been accepted by the Tribunal in several appeals and held the demands to be barred by time. On such case is BRAITHWATE & CO., 2000 (116) ELT 487 and they have also relied on the several the Apex Court judgments to plead that the demands time barred and that penalty was not imposable. Taking into consideration the pleas made by both the sides, the Tribunal vide above final order remanded the matter to the original authority for de novo consideration.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 2 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Pratap Rajasthan Copper Foils And ... vs C.C.E. on 12 May, 1999

In counter Ld. Counsels submit that the Constitutional Bench of 5 Hon'ble Judges in the case of MAN STRUCTURALS LTD have given clear direction that the matter requires to be adjudicated in the light of the Apex Court judgment rendered in Modi LAMINATES PVT. LTD and Ors. v. CCE, 1995 (76) ELT 241 (SC) and that of UOI v.DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS LTD and Anr., 1997 (91) ELT 23 (SC). Therefore, the Counsel submits that the mere fact of the item being mentioned in the tariff will not ipsofacto make the item as marketable one and to be considered as goods. He submits that the test of marketability is required to be applied in the light of the Apex Court Judgment. They further submits that as it required consideration of facts, therefore the matter is required to be remanded for de novo consideration. Ld. Counsel further relied on the judgment of ARUNA INDUSTRIES 1986 (25) ELT 580 wherein these items have been considered as not goods.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 0 - Cited by 25 - Full Document
1