Tax Management India. Com
                            Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Manuals Short Notes News Articles Highlights
Case Laws
Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Tri Central Excise - Tri This
Citation -
Order by


Central Excise - Tribunal - Case Laws

Showing 54681 to 54700 of 57072 Records

  • 1989 (2) TMI 274

    ... ...
    ... ... rejection under Rule 3(a) with reference to the contention put-forth in this regard by the parties herein. In this view of the matter we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Collector (Appeals). The appeal is, therefore, rejected.

  • 1989 (2) TMI 272

    ... ...
    ... ... ore the competent appellate authority. We, therefore, hold for the reasons set out above that the imposition of penalty is not sustainable under law and in this view of the matter we set aside the impugned order appealed against and allow the appeal.

  • 1989 (2) TMI 271

    ... ...
    ... ... in the reply to the Show Cause Notice have not been considered by the original authority, we set aside the impugned order appealed against and remit the matter for reconsideration by the original authority in the light of our observations made above.

  • 1989 (2) TMI 270

    ... ...
    ... ... me forward initially with their declaration about their manufacturing activity, there is some ground for reducing the quantum of penalty which is accordingly reduced to Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand). The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

  • 1989 (2) TMI 254

    ... ...
    ... ... detriment of the appellant and such a situation does not arise in the present appeal at all. Therefore, on consideration of the entire matter before us, we are of the view that there is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

  • 1989 (2) TMI 251

    ... ...
    ... ... . Consequently, we uphold the same and dismiss the appeal. 20. The penalty of Rs. l lakh imposed on the appellants is not excessive considering the gravity of the offence and the amount of duty involved. We do not, therefore, interfere with the same.

  • 1989 (2) TMI 250

    ... ...
    ... ... e department. Hence the Collector rsquo s order rejecting the appeal for non-deposit of the duty amount is not sustainable. We, therefore, set aside the said order and remand the case to the Collector (Appeals) for considering their appeal on merits.

  • 1989 (2) TMI 247

    ... ...
    ... ... ns having a relation to the rate of duty of excise and, therefore, not referrable to the High Court in terms of Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Consequently, the Reference Application in hand is rejected being not maintainable.

  • 1989 (2) TMI 246

    ... ...
    ... ... dy decided the appeal on the basis of the fact and law made out in issue at Sl. No. (1)(e) above, it is not necessary for us to go into merit of the other issues. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and direct the consequential relief to the appellants.

  • 1989 (2) TMI 245

    ... ...
    ... ... e of Food Corporation of India v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1988(36)-E.L.T.-639(T), which has not been cited by either party before us. 10. In the result, we uphold the impugned order of the Collector (Appeals) and dismiss this appeal.

  • 1989 (2) TMI 244

    ... ...
    ... ... kin. rdquo 38. In view of the above, we allow the appeal of the Revenue in the above terms. Any recovery to be made will have to be in terms of the assessment of the goods in terms of Tariff heading 1704.90 subject to the other provisions of the law.

  • 1989 (2) TMI 233

    ... ...
    ... ... icle. In the present instance, there is no such evidence before us. 8. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the subject broken poles were not liable to be charged to excise duty. We uphold the impugned order and dismiss this appeal.

  • 1989 (2) TMI 232

    ... ...
    ... ... 7. 7. In the above view of the matter, we hold that the order of the Collector (Appeals) is not maintainable in law and we allow the appeal of the Department and uphold the demand. The cross-objection is dismissed, it being in the nature of comments.

  • 1989 (2) TMI 231

    ... ...
    ... ... of the time bar and particularly when findings of fact by the Assistant Collector had not been challenged in the grounds of appeal before him. He is directed to pass reasoned order in this regard also. 36. The appeal is, therefore, allowed by remand.

  • 1989 (2) TMI 230

    ... ...
    ... ... filing the appeals is involved and hence, no application for condonation of delay is required. 5. The preliminary objection raised by the learned S.D.R. is disposed of in the above terms. 6. The stay applications will come up for hearing on 3.3.1989.

  • 1989 (2) TMI 229

    ... ...
    ... ... 5. ensp It was also pleaded by Shri Karnik that despite the stay application being heard, the goods have been ordered detention. In view of the unconditional stay granted, they may approach the appropriate authority for getting release of the goods.

  • 1989 (2) TMI 228

    ... ...
    ... ... pplication for condonation of delay. The appeal is dismissed being hit by limitation without going into the merits of the same. Since the application for condonation of delay and the appeal have been dismissed, the stay application is also dismissed.

  • 1989 (2) TMI 227

    ... ...
    ... ... ducts of the respondents are correctly classifiable under Item 16A(1) of the Central Excise Tariff and not under Tariff Item 34-A as motor vehicle parts. 7. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the Appellate Collector and allow this appeal.

  • 1989 (2) TMI 226

    ... ...
    ... ... observed that it is the high time when the Legislature should step in to check such a fraud on consumers and the society when such a claim is made for the refund of the excise duty which the manufacturers have already recovered from their customers.

  • 1989 (2) TMI 225

    ... ...
    ... ... t of proviso to Section 11B. In this view of the matter, we direct that the Asstt. Collector should work out the duty paid only on paper cones and tubes during the relevant period and grant consequential relief. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.