Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. MIL Industries Limited Versus Additional Commissioner of Central Excise Chennai II

2016 (8) TMI 704 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Demand - manufacture of Rubber lined Steel Tanks/Pipes - Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that:- in the Assessee's own case the Tribunal held that the very same process was not manufacturing. The said order passed by the Tribunal h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-II [2004 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], and the earlier order passed by the CESTAT, held that the issue is already covered by the decision of the Tribunal and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

A. P. Srinivas ORDER: In both the writ petitions, the petitioner is M/s.MIL Industries Limited. In W.P.No.30169 of 2015, the challenge is to an order-in-original No.15/2015 dated 17.08.2015 and in W.P.No.30170 of 2015, the challenge is to a demand is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vulcanized sheets, Rubber Hoses, Rubber Gaskets falling under Chapter Sub-Heading Nos.35069110, 40059190, 40082190, 40093200, 40169340 respectively of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner dated 01.07.2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nalty should not be imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner submitted their reply to the show-cause notice by referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tega India Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-II .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

volved. Though such a reply was given, the first respondent/Adjudicating Officer did not deal with those objections and proceeded to discuss about the activity done by the petitioner and concluded that a new product emerges, which is not in the marke .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

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

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

Go to Mobile Version