Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2003 2003 2003 (8) Central Excise - 2003 (8) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Central Excise - Case Laws

Showing 181 to 189 of 189 Records

• 2003 (8) TMI 51 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
  

  Appeal - Restoration of

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... rect in holding that if the counsel for the petitioner had been unable to obtain instructions his duty was to give up the case or to argue the case to the best of his ability. According to us, the material on record constituted sufficient cause for non-appearance before the Tribunal on the date of hearing. The impugned Order, therefore, of the Tribunal, dated 25th January, 1999, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and the impugned Order, dated 31st August, 2001, insofar as it dismissed the application of the petitioner for restoration of Appeal No. E/4388/95 are wholly unsustainable and are liable to be quashed and set aside. 7.We, therefore, allow the Writ Petition and quash and set aside the impugned Orders as indicated above and direct the Tribunal to decide the Appeal of the petitioner No. E/4388/95 afresh within 12 weeks from today with due notice to the petitioner of the date of hearing of the Appeal. Rule made absolute on the above terms, with no order as to costs.

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the extracts were goods for the purpose of the Central Excise Act and if so, whether they were classifiable under Chapter 13 or 30 of the Act?

  Held that:- Whichever way we look at it the reasoning of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. That the circular is binding on the Revenue Authorities cannot be disputed in view of the well established law summarised in Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara v. Dhiren chemical Industries reported in [2001 (12) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. Since the concurrent finding of act is that the liquid extracts used by the appellant in the manufacture of the medicines had therapeutic value, then they can, according to the CBEC circular be classifiable only under Tariff Entry 30.30 and not 13.03. In favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 49 - SUPREME COURT
  

  SSI Exemption - Brand/Trade name - Held that:- no document has been shown that the subsequent assignment in favour of M/s. Vikshara Trading & Invest. P. Ltd. was registered as contemplated under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. This aspect was taken note of by the Tribunal that the trade mark need not necessarily be in respect of all goods unless registration has been so acquired and it is therefore, permissible in law to have same brand name for different classes of goods owned by different person, and in that background found in favour of the respondent and held that the Notification No. 223/87-C.E., dated 22-9-1987 was applicable. When as a matter of fact it is held that there was an assignment in favour of the first respondent and that fact was not in serious dispute the mere fact that the assignment was not registered could not alter the position - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 48 - SC ORDER
  

  Valuation (Central Excise) - Exempted goods - Held that:- commodity - Spert in question itself was exempted from tax. Therefore, the question of valuation would not arise - In this light it is unnecessary to examine correctness of the decision of the Tribunal - Decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 46 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Classification of electric fans of different varieties - Held that:- Restore the decision of the Collector (Appeals who based his decision on the fact that the fans in question were designed primarily as table fans, although they were capable for being hung from wall or ceiling. He rightly pointed out that, because of the peculiarity of design and manufacture, the concerned fans were entirely different from regular cabin fans which could not be adapted as table fans; also basing his decision on the description of the fans in the literature distributed by the appellants. The literature describes it predominantly as a table fan, though capable of being fixed on the wall or ceiling thus attracting ad valorem duty of 5% under T.I. No. 33(1)(a). There was no justification for the CEGAT to interfere with the order of the Collector (Appeals). In favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 45 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Export - Denial of Rebate claim - Short duty paid - Held that:- Even though M/s. Gopi Synthetics has since paid the duty and it has been finally held that there was no fraud, collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts, rebate is being denied to the appellants. This is being done on the specious plea that it was the duty of the appellants, before he exported the goods, to see that the correct amount of duty had been paid. We are unable to accept this submission. Benefit of rebate is not to be denied because there is short payment. Benefit can be denied only if there is short payment by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts. Once it has been held that there was no fraud, collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts on the part of the party who was to pay the duty then the exporter cannot be denied rebate. - appellants will be entitled to rebate under the Notification - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 44 - SC ORDER
  

  Denial of exemption claim - Labels - Held that:- In regard to Printed paper labels, there is no dispute before the Tribunal either and that part of the order of the Tribunal in relation thereto has now become final. Insofar as other items are concerned the same are covered by decisions of this Court in Metagraphs Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay - [1996 (11) TMI 68 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and in Johnson & Johnson Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II - [1997 (7) TMI 138 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - cloth printed labels, aluminium foil printed labels, film printed labels and paper printed labels are eligible for exemption as a product of the print industry - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 43 - SC ORDER
  

  Penalty - Alteration in computation - Held that:- When the basis for computation of excise duty has been altered by the Tribunal, it may not be correct to levy penalty. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case we think there is no basis to levy any penalty upon the appellants. The order made by the authorities, as affirmed by the Tribunal is set aside to that limited extent. In other respects, the order of the Tribunal shall remain undisturbed - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 42 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Application for refund claim - Held that:- . Merely because the departmental authorities took a long time to process the application for refund, the right of the appellant does not get defeated by the subsequent amendment made in sub-rule (5) of Rule 9B. The Commissioner of Central Excise and the CEGAT were, therefore, justified in holding that the claim for refund made by the appellant had to be decided according to the law laid down by this Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. (1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) and would not be governed by the proviso to sub-rule (5) of Rule 9B.

  The restrictions in Section 11A and Section 11B would not apply to refund claims consequent upon finalisation of provisional assessment orders. In favour of assessee.

  ---

1 ....678910