Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.96 seconds)Section 37 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Orient Paper Mills Ltd vs Union Of India on 16 March, 1967
In Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. Union of India a direction of the Central Board was itself in question. The following passage directly on point.
Union Of India & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Bombay Tyre International Ltd. Etc. Etc on 7 October, 1983
The following line of thinking lends support to the view taken by me. After extracting a passage from the Bombay Tyre case and Hindustan Polymer [1989 (43) ELT 165], the Tribunal says -
Collector Of Central Excise vs Vst Industries on 23 August, 1990
10. There is an interesting judgment of the Tribunal in Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. VST Industries, Hyderabad and 2 Others [1991 (52) ELT 59 (Tri.) = 1990 (16) ETR 539].
Collector Of Central Excise, Madras vs Indian Oxygen Ltd on 2 August, 1988
In Collector of Central Excise v. Indian Oxygen - 1989 (41) ELT 610, the Tribunal holds that any interest accruing on deposits received for such cylinders cannot constitute a part of assessable value.
Lili Foam Industries (P) Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 30 August, 1989
12. Again the view that facts of each case has to be analysed and assessed before taking a view one way or the other is seen also from Lili Foam Industries (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1990 (46) ELT 462. The following passage is relevant.
Kerala Electric Lamp Works Ltd. And Anr. vs Collector Of Central Excise And Anr. on 26 November, 1987
13. Again in Kerala Electric Lamp Works Ltd. and Another v. Collector of Central Excise, Cochin and Another [1988 (33) ELT 771] the following passage is helpful.
Sri Ramdas Motor Transport Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 15 September, 1983
In Ramdas Motor Transport Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1988 (36) ELT 629], the Tribunal held that the appellant got considerable working capital which they would otherwise have had to borrow from Bank and pay the Commercial Bank interest thereon. Accordingly, it was held that the interest-free deposit taken from one or more authorised dealer or dealers constituted additional consideration for the sale of their goods which flowed bank to the appellants.
B. Rajagopala Naidu vs State Transport Appellate Tribunal & ... on 5 March, 1964
The following passage in Rajagopal Naidu's case is apposite.