Escorts JCB Ltd. v. CCE

Commissioner of Customs and C.E.Nagpur vs. M/S. Ispat Industries Ltd

…of the Central Excise Act, 1944.” 6. On appeal by the respondents herein, CESTAT, by its judgment dated 24.7.2006, reversed the order of the Commissioner holding that, on the facts of the case, this Court’s judgment in Escorts JCB Ltd. v. CCE, (2003) 1 SCC 281 concluded the issue in favour of Ispat. CESTAT also relied upon a Board’s circular dated 3.3.2003 which acknowledged that the question of ownership of goods in transit cannot be determined solely with reference to an Insurance Policy taken out by the manufacturer. As regards the statement of Shri Dahiwade, according to CESTAT, such statement woul…

Commissioner of Customs and C.E.Nagpur vs. M/S. Ispat Industries Ltd

…of the Central Excise Act, 1944.” 6. On appeal by the respondents herein, CESTAT, by its judgment dated 24.7.2006, reversed the order of the Commissioner holding that, on the facts of the case, this Court’s judgment in Escorts JCB Ltd. v. CCE, (2003) 1 SCC 281 concluded the issue in favour of Ispat. CESTAT also relied upon a Board’s circular dated 3.3.2003 which acknowledged that the question of ownership of goods in transit cannot be determined solely with reference to an Insurance Policy taken out by the manufacturer. As regards the statement of Shri Dahiwade, according to CESTAT, such statement woul…

Commnr., Customs & Cent.Excise Aurangabad vs. M/S. Roofit Industries Ltd

Appeal is allowed restoring the order passed by the Adjudicating

…n duly served in the appeal. However, nobody has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent. Matter came up for final arguments on 10.04.2015. On that day, we heard learned counsel for the appellant for some time as the 1 2002 (146) ELT 31 (SC) = (2003) 1 SCC 281 Civil Appeal No. 5541 of 2004 Page 3 of 15 Page 4 JUDGMENT argument remained inconclusive. For remaining arguments, matter was adjourned to 13.04.2015. However, nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent on 10.04.2015 and 13.04.2015. In these circumstances, we had no option but to reserve the matter for judgment after heari…

Commnr., Customs & Cent.Excise Aurangabad vs. M/S. Roofit Industries Ltd

Appeal is allowed restoring the order passed by the Adjudicating

…n duly served in the appeal. However, nobody has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent. Matter came up for final arguments on 10.04.2015. On that day, we heard learned counsel for the appellant for some time as the 1 2002 (146) ELT 31 (SC) = (2003) 1 SCC 281 Civil Appeal No. 5541 of 2004 Page 3 of 15 Page 4 JUDGMENT argument remained inconclusive. For remaining arguments, matter was adjourned to 13.04.2015. However, nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent on 10.04.2015 and 13.04.2015. In these circumstances, we had no option but to reserve the matter for judgment after heari…