Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act 1932 section 17 rights and duties of partners Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat delhi Year: 2003

Apr 01 2003 (TRI)

Dujodwala Industries and ors. Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Apr-01-2003

Reported in : (2003)(110)LC126Tri(Delhi)

..... 1837 (t) that the kerala high court has held in rice & oil mills v. dy.superintendent of central excise that a partnership firm is independent of its partners and a firm is the same as a corporation and exemption cannot be computed per capita that it has been held by the ..... undertaken by them on the raw materials do not amount to manufacture. once the process of manufacture takes place. central excise duty is leviable under section 3 of the act irrespective of the fact that the goods after being manufactured fall in the same heading. in fact, the learned advocate ..... not brought any material on record to controvert the submissions that these were not independent buyers. thus following the decisions in the case of indian oxygen ltd. v. commissioner of central excise , the assessable value has to be determined on the basis of factory gate price for the ..... itself and secondly in october, 1987 and was accepted to be rightfully entitled to exemption after both the enquiries; that the assistant collector had approved the classification lists after due enquiries; that the factum of common location/partner/director from the same families, common laboratory/common canteen, common main ..... to be clubbed fo determining the availability of the benefit of small scale exemption.17. we also agree with the submissions of the learning senio1 departmental representative that the extended period of limitation am demanding duty is invokable as the appellants had devised the modus operandi of having three units .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 2003 (TRI)

M.D. Kedia Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Apr-01-2003

Reported in : (2003)(159)ELT909TriDel

..... in rice & oil mills v. dy. superintendent of central excise - 1981 (8) e.l.t. 59 (ker.) that a partnership firm is independent of its partners and a firm is the same as a corporation and exemption cannot be computed per capita; that it has been held by the calcutta ..... undertaken by them on the raw materials do not amount to manufacture. once the process of manufacture takes place, central excise duty is leviable under section 3 of the act irrespective of the fact that the goods after being manufactured fall in the same heading. in fact, the learned, advocate ..... has not brought any material on record to controvert the submissions that these were not independent buyers. thus following the decisions in the case of indian oxygen ltd. v. commissioner of central excise - 1988 (36) e.l.t 723 (s.c), the assessable value has to be determined ..... beginning itself and secondly in october, 1987 and was accepted to be rightfully entitled to exemption after both the enquiries; that the assistant collector had approved the classification lists after due enquiries; that the factum of common location/partner/director from the same families, common laboratory/common canteen, common main ..... to be clubbed for determining the availability of the benefit of small-scale exemption.17. we also agree with the submissions of the learned senior departmental representative that the extended period of limitation for demanding duty is invokable as the appellants had devised the modus operandi of having three units .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 14 2003 (TRI)

Shahnaz Ayurvedics and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : May-14-2003

Reported in : (2003)(88)ECC615

..... of central excise, 1998 (98) elt 552 (t) that mutuality of business of assessee and partnership firm has to be established before two firms can be considered as related and mere relationship between partners of two firms is not sufficient.reliance has also been placed on the decision in commissioner of ..... fact has been suppressed from the department which makes the provisions of proviso to section 11a(1) of the central excise act invocable. once the extended period of limitation is invocable for demanding the duty, the demand of duty can be made by the revenue on all counts.16. revenue has also ..... ." it is also mentioned in the book that "i took the opportunity to direct world focus on herbal cosmetics highlighting the immense scope of indian herbal remedies in the international cosmetic market. i pointed out that there was no reason why herbal cosmetics manufactured in india should not find a ..... care products; customers place order for the goods as cosmetics and toilet preparations and not as medicines. the learned advocate 'for revenue has rightly emphasized that the products which are exported as cosmetics cannot be called ayurvedic medicine for home consumption in india. medicines is medicine and it cannot ..... subhash chandarnishat v. union of india, 1979 elt ) 212 (bom), the tribunal also held in commissioner of central excise v. amaratara industries, 1988 (17) ecc 229 (t): 1988 (37) elt 152 (t) that it would not be proper for the officer to reject affidavits summarily on his own .....

Tag this Judgment!


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