Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)
Vamshi Rubber Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 28 May, 2004 cites

Mrf Limited vs Cce on 8 April, 2004

The goods covered by Heading 4006 but not covered by sub-heading 4006.10 will automatically go to sub-heading 4006.90. Since Bonding Gum/Repair Gum are not mentioned in sub-heading 4006.10, therefore, they will be correctly classifiable under sub-heading 4006.90, in view of the decision of the Tribunal in case of MRF Ltd. v. CCE - 1993 (68) E.L.T. 876. In view of this Bonding Gum/Repair Gum will be eligible for SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93, dated 28-2-93 as has been claimed by the appellants. Therefore, demand of duty of Rs. 1,76,853/- is not sustainable.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 4 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Asiatic Oxygen Ltd. vs Cce on 28 February, 2000

They are now claiming that the assessable value of the goods which were sold from the depot should be the assessable value of those goods as was at the factory gate and accordingly the aggregate value of the clearance from the factory should be worked out which according to them works out to Rs. 1/47,91,888.45 for the year 1995-96. He pleaded that during the relevant period, i.e. 1995-96 and 1996-97, Section 4(1) of Central Excise Act was relevant for valuation of the goods. According to which the assessable value of the goods for the purpose of charging duty is the price charged at the factory gate. He relied on the Apex Court decision in case of Indian Oxygen Ltd. v. CCE - 1988 (36) E.L.T. 723 (S.C.) wherein it was held that where the goods are partly sold from depots and partly sold from factory gate and ex-factory price is ascertainable, then ex-factory price should be the value under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act even for goods sold from depot. Similar views were taken in the following decisions -
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 2 - Cited by 27 - Full Document
1