Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: customs act 1962 Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat bangalore Page 100 of about 3,849 results (0.376 seconds)

May 20 2004 (TRI)

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Gargi Enterprises

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

Reported in : (2004)(171)ELT276Tri(Bang.)

..... . the parts of transformers arc covered under chapter heading 8504.00. it is the further contention of the revenue that section note 1(c) of section xvi of the cet act excludes the goods bobbins, spools, cops, cones, reels or similar support of any material from the chapter headings 39, 40, 44 or 48. in view of this specific exclusion in ..... and thereafter used as part of transformers have been held to be classifiable under heading 39.26 and in view of section note 1(c) of section xvi of cet act as decided by this bench in the case of cce, bangalore v. die crafts - 2003 (155) e.l.t. 569 (tri. - bang.).5. the learned chartered accountant pointed out that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 01 2004 (TRI)

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Mysore Ammonia Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

Reported in : (2004)(171)ELT321Tri(Bang.)

..... the said vapours are being trapped and dissolved in water and stored in a vessel and the same is being sold as liquid ammonia in carboys to various customers which contain 20% to 22% of un-hydrous ammonia. according to revenue, the process of dissolving ammonia in water amounts to manufacture and it is covered ..... of lakme lever ltd. v. cce, mumbai, 2001 (127) e.l.t. 790 wherein the terms "adoption of any other treatment to render the products marketable to customers" has been examined and it was held that - "4. one of the meaning of the word 'rendering' the one that would obviously apply, to the phrase of ..... form of vapours escapes which is dissolved in water it is called liquid ammonia and same is being sold by them to the customers. he stated that the central board of excise and customs in it's circular no. 236/70/96-c.ex., dated 1-8-96 in para 7 has clearly stated that technically ..... charge of the revenue is that in view of note 10 to chapter 28 of schedule to central excise tariff act, the activity of dissolving un-hydrous ammonia in water to render ammonia marketable to the customers in the form of liquid ammonia is covered by the definition of "the adoption of any other treatment to ..... process of conversion of un-hydrous ammonia into aqueous ammonia does not amount to manufacture within the meaning of section 2(f) of central excise and salt act, 1944 and if un-hydrous ammonia is duty paid no further duty is payable on the aqueous solution. he also referred to the decision of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 18 2004 (TRI)

Jindal Vijaynagar Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

Reported in : (2004)(96)ECC250

..... effect on the goods satisfying the test results and the same having been handed over to the transporter, therefore subsequent transportation charges collected to the customers' place is not required to be added in the assessable value. the appellants had also declared to the department in their price list and ..... then addition of the cost of transportation charges does not arise for clearance effective from depot. he referred to the purchase orders of all the customers wherein it is clearly disclosed that the 'test certificate should be provided indicating chemistry and mechanical properties alongwith each dispatch from your works to our ..... in terms of this section, the goods are deemed to have been delivered to the customer when the goods were handed over to the transporter. even in terms of section 2(b) of the central excise act, the transfer of the possession of goods by one person to another in the ordinary ..... . there is no reason to hold that the appellants have sold the goods at the customers' point. the mere fact of assessee agreeing for giving some additional facility to the customers to arrange the transportation is not a fact for the ..... customers' place. once the goods have been handed over to the transporter through the driver including the consignment and the invoice having been handed over then the sale is deemed to have been effected at the factory gate.this is the position also in terms of the provisions of sale of goods act .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 23 2004 (TRI)

Bpl Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

Reported in : (2004)(97)ECC277

..... .c. defibrillators for external use only and the internal paddles were only optional and these were supplied only in a few cases where the customers wanted such internal paddles. this fact coupled with the description given in classification declaration describing the goods as 'd.c.defibrillators' without disclosing ..... after such further inquiry as he may consider necessary re-assess the correct amount of duty payable following the provisions of section 11a of the act and assessee shall pay the deficiency, if any. rule 173b(iii) authorizes the proper officer to conduct enquiry in connection with the declaration ..... along fully or truly -- consequent upon the issuance of exemption notification assessee itself classified the goods under heading 87.05 of central excise tariff act, 1985 and given a full description of goods for the first time while claiming exemption -- extended period of limitation applicable". she stated that ..... p. dattar, ld. senior advocate pleaded that the show cause notice for larger period under proviso to section 11a of the central excise act is unsustainable in law as there has been no suppression on the part of the appellant. the issue relates to interpretation of notification and ..... df 2389 without recorder and df 2389r with recorder falling under sub-heading no. 9018.00 of the schedule to the central excise tariff act. they filed a classification declaration no. 7/97 under rule 173b of the central excise rules, 1944 claiming exemption under notification no.8/ .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 20 2004 (TRI)

Solaris Chemtech Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

Reported in : (2004)(96)ECC593

..... authority had erroneously assumed that in terms of the contract between the appellants and the buyer, the delivery of the goods is to be made at the premises of the customers and are not sold for delivery at the factory gate and therefore invoked rule 57 valuation rules. it was pointed out that the commissioner (appeals), had not appreciated the submission ..... as the goods are not sold by assessee for delivery at their factory gate, the value has to be determined in terms of section 41(d) of the central excise act read with provisions of the central excise valuation rules in terms of which the cost of transportation would be excluded only if the same is shown separately in the invoice ..... raised on the buyer. as the cost of transportation charged in the commercial invoice had not been included in the invoices issued under rule 52 of the erstwhile central excise act, 1944. the department issued a show cause notice to the appellants for inclusion of the cost of transportation in the assessable value and duty was demanded. the adjudicating authority held ..... to as appellants) are engaged in the manufacture of caustic soda lie, caustic soda fakes, orthophosphoric acid, hydrochloric acid, dcp etc., falling under various chapters of the central excise tariff act, 1985.2. as per the terms of delivery for the various products manufactured and sold by the appellants, the sale is on ex-factory basis, however, at the request of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 10 2004 (TRI)

Bengal Lamps Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

Reported in : (2005)(119)LC358Tri(Bang.)alore

..... ratio of the cot spun case is very relevant. lastly the invocation of a rule which is omitted and has not been saved by section 38a of the central excise act, 1944 has proved fatal to the cause of the revenue. in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not able to uphold the oio. hence the we allow ..... (2) 412 (sc) and also kolhapur cane sugar works ltd. v. uoi that "omission" is not equal to repeal and therefore section 38a of the central excise act which was enacted in the finance act, 2001 does not save any proceedings under rule 10a. it was urged that section 38a seeks to continue the proceedings initiated under any rules which is amended .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 19 2004 (TRI)

Cce Vs. First Flight Couriers Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

Reported in : (2005)(0)ELT0Tri(Bang.)

..... penalty of rs. 3,03,300/- @ rs. 100/- for each day of delay in remittance tax during the period from april 1998 to september 1998 under section 76 of finance act, 1994. there is another penalty of rs. 4,000/- @ rs. 2,000/- per return, which has been filed late under section 77 of the finance ..... act, 1994.2. the learned counsel submits that the appellant company's staff were under strike and there was no intention to evade duty in the matter.the records were all .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 02 2004 (TRI)

Excel Corrugated Boxes (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

Reported in : (2005)(182)ELT485Tri(Bang.)

..... order-in-appeal has confirmed the order-in-original no. 56/2003 dated 18-12-2003 demanding duty of rs. 7,64,418/- under section 11a(1) of central excise act, 1944. interest under section 11ab was also confirmed-.8. learned sdr contended that the declaration filed by m/s. excel cannot be given a retrospective effect. he urged that order ..... amount of rs. 12,53,953/- plus rs. 8,57,480/- under proviso to section 11a and imposed penalty of rs. 12,53,953/- under section 11ac of central excise act, 1944. a penalty of rs. 1,000/- under rule 25 of central excise (no. 2) rules 2001 was also imposed on m/s. excel. in appeal, the duty demand was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 16 2004 (TRI)

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Asea Brown Boveri Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

Reported in : (2005)(18)ELT401Tri(Bang.)

..... equipment but they are actually programmable logic controller equipments and sub assembles thereof which merit classification under chapter heading 85.37 and 85.38 respectively of the central excise tariff act, 1985 as rightly held by the original authority in his orders in original no. 17/98, dated 15-1-1998 and 50/98, dated 17-2-1998." 6. we have ..... 1. this is an appeal filed by the revenue against o-i-a no. 1127/1999 dated 26-10-1999 passed by the commissioner of customs & central excise (appeals), bangalore.2. the short question involved in this appeal is the correct classification of the distributor control systems manufactured by the appellant. the commissioner, in his o- .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 07 2005 (TRI)

Bbr (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

Reported in : (2006)STR25

1. the appellant is seeking waiver of pre-deposit of service tax amount of rs. 5,67,813/- and penalty of rs. 11,37,126/-. the appellants have been brought within the net of service tax on the ground that they are 'consulting engineer' which has been denied by the appellants. the contention of the appellants is that they were only furnishing the drawing and design and there was no part to play in giving any advise in the nature of 'consultancy' to their clients. the learned counsel relies on this bench judgment (stay order no. 1085/2004, dated 21-10-2004) rendered in the case of araco corporation v. cce, bangalore. he submits that this matter can be heard without clubbing with other matter as it is different from the other matter. he submits that the board circular no. b2/8/2004-tru, dated 10-9-2004 brings the appellants within the service tax net with effect from 10-9-2004 and hence the earlier period of this matter is not covered by the act.3. prima facie, we find that the appellant's contention is required to be accepted in view of this bench earlier stay order no. 1085/2004, dated 21-10-2004 in the case of m/s. arco corporation and the board circular no. b2/8/2004-tru, dated 10-9-2004. therefore, the stay application is allowed granting waiver of pre-deposit of the disputed amounts and staying its recovery till the disposal of the appeal. the appeal to come up for hearing on 7-3-2005.

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //