Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.36 seconds)The Central Excise Act, 1944
Cosmic Dye Chemical vs Collector Of Central Excise, Bombay on 6 September, 1994
Reliance was placed by the Ld. Counsel in this regard on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Cosmic Dye Chemical v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay and Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras that intent to evade payment of duty must be proved for involving the longer period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It was further contended by the Ld. Counsel that even assuming the stems are liable to duty the appellants will be entitled to Modvat credit on the inputs used in its manufacture irrespective of the facts that the procedural requirement of Modvat credit had not been fulfilled.
Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs Collector Of Central Excise, Madras And ... on 28 September, 1994
Reliance was placed by the Ld. Counsel in this regard on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Cosmic Dye Chemical v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay and Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras that intent to evade payment of duty must be proved for involving the longer period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It was further contended by the Ld. Counsel that even assuming the stems are liable to duty the appellants will be entitled to Modvat credit on the inputs used in its manufacture irrespective of the facts that the procedural requirement of Modvat credit had not been fulfilled.
Formica India Division vs Collector Of Central Excise And Ors. on 29 March, 1995
For this arguments the Ld. Counsel relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Formica India Division v. Collector of Central Excise .
Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 7 July, 1994
It was also contended that the penalty under Section 11 AC and interest under Section 11AB are not chargeable during the period when these statutory provisions were not in force, as has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of Maruti Udyog Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi 1998 (25) RLT 246 (Cegat). In the present case the duty demand relates to a period prior to 28.9.1996 when these provisions came into effect.
Bhor Industries Ltd., Bombay vs Collector Of Central Excise, Bombay on 31 January, 1989
The entire process, the Ld. Counsel submitted, is one composite and integrated process and at no stage is it possible to handle any material including the stems; if any material is so handled the same will have to be rejected and discarded and cannot be used for further process for conversion into a bulb. The Ld. Counsel urged that the stem is not marketable and it is not known in the market also. The Ld. Counsel referred to the reasoning in the Commissioner's order that because the appellants are using the goods captively, the marketability criterion is satisfied and also that because the goods as parts of bulbs are listed in the CETA, they are excisable goods. The Ld. Counsel in this context cited and relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Bhor Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise and also the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nirlon Synthetic Fibres & Chemicals Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise in which it was held that it was not enough mat there should be manufacture and manufactured product should find mention in the Excise Tariff. It was necessary also to establish marketability, and if it was not done, no Excise duty could be levied upon the material. In the present case the appellants have produced the Affidavit of Shri V.D. Patankar B.E. Sr. Manager Technical, who has stated therein that the stems are not stored but are taken and loaded mechanically on to the mounting unit Holding Jaws continuously. Stems cannot be stored and any handling thereof by human hands will deteriorate the bulb quality and drastically reduce the lamp life. The appellants have also supported their case of non-marketability by Affidavit from dealers in electric bulbs, who have stated that there is no market for such stems, and nobody buys and sells the material. As against this, the department has not produced any evidence. The Ld. Counsel further contended that there was no justification for involving the longer period for demanding the duty in this case since for so many years the appellants have been manufacturing bulbs and the department is very much aware of their production process and the stems as part of the bulb are visible to the naked eye.
Sylvania & Laxman Ltd. And Another vs Union Of India And Others on 5 February, 1982
Moreover, in the Delhi High Court judgment cited by the Ld. JDR in Sylvania Laxman Ltd. case also the facts are same, where the petitioner manufactured GLS lamps and electric bulbs under Chapter 85 of the CETA.