Kohinoor Elastics (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore2, for the 2

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central 1 Kolkata vs. M/S Magnetic Niryat Pvt Ltd

Bench: The Learned Special Judge, Cbi Court No.1 (Being The Learned Judge-In-Charge Of E.D. Court) As He Is In Custody For More Than 14 Months & There Has Been No Progress In The Case, Further According To The Petitioner

…de to the judgements of Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2018) 12 SCC 129, Neeru Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2016) 15 SCC 422 and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr. reported in (2004) 7 SCC 528 which relate to principles of bail and different criteria to be considered before releasing a person in respect of offences are heinous in nature. According to the learned advocate for the Enforcement Directorate the present petitioner do not satisfy any of the conditions for which he may be released in connection with the instant case. It has…

M/S. Rdb Textiles Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Kolkata-IV Commissionerate

The appeals are allowed and the judgment of the

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

…said documents, which go to the root of these cases. They also cited decisions on how such circulars are binding on the department. According to them, the CESTAT grossly erred in relying heavily upon the judgment in Kohinoor Elastics (P) Ltd. v. CCE, (2005) 7 SCC 528, as that judgment dealt with a specific exemption notification and held that as a brand name was assumed to have been used, on the facts of that case, no argument was addressed as to whether the particular mark used was a brand name as defined. Further, they said that the judgment was clearly distinguishable, in that, in the exemption notification…

M/S. Vir Rubber Products P. Ltd vs. Commnr. of Central Excise, Mumbai-III

…upon. On this basis, it is mentioned that the Notification in question would not apply. This reasoning of the CEGAT is contrary to the law laid down by this court in 'Kohinoor Elastics (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore' [(2005) 7 SCC 528]. This very argument was repelled by the court in the following words: “However, the words “used in relation to such specified goods for the purpose of indicating or so as to indicate a connection in the course of trade between such specified goods and some person using such name or trade between such specified goods and so…

M/S. Vir Rubber Products P. Ltd vs. Commnr. of Central Excise, Mumbai-III

…upon. On this basis, it is mentioned that the Notification in question would not apply. This reasoning of the CEGAT is contrary to the law laid down by this court in 'Kohinoor Elastics (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore' [(2005) 7 SCC 528]. This very argument was repelled by the court in the following words: “However, the words “used in relation to such specified goods for the purpose of indicating or so as to indicate a connection in the course of trade between such specified goods and some person using such name or trade between such specified goods and so…

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai vs. M/S. Australian Foods India Private Ltd

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside, leaving the

…which the good is sold, would be a crucial factor in determining the question. 13. Learned counsel strongly relied on another decision of this Court in Kohinoor Elastics (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore2, for the 2 (2005) 7 SCC 528 9 Page 10 JUDGMENT proposition that only the “specified good” in question must be scrutinized and the expression cannot be expanded to mean “specified outlets” or other surrounding circumstances. To bring home his point, reliance was placed on the following paragraphs from the said decision: “5. Clause 4 of the…

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai vs. M/S. Australian Foods India Private Ltd

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside, leaving the

…which the good is sold, would be a crucial factor in determining the question. 13. Learned counsel strongly relied on another decision of this Court in Kohinoor Elastics (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore2, for the 2 (2005) 7 SCC 528 9 Page 10 JUDGMENT proposition that only the “specified good” in question must be scrutinized and the expression cannot be expanded to mean “specified outlets” or other surrounding circumstances. To bring home his point, reliance was placed on the following paragraphs from the said decision: “5. Clause 4 of the…

Commnr. of Central Excise, Surat-I vs. M/S. Favourite Industries

…ding. Wordings of some other notification are of no benefit in construing a particular notification .” 27. In Kohinoor Elastics (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore, (2005) 7 SCC 528, this Court has held: “7. When the wordings of the notifications are clear and unambiguous they must be given effect to . By a strained reasoning benefit cannot be given when it is clearly not available.” 28. In Compack (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara, (2005)…

Commnr. Central Excise, Delhi vs. M/S. Ace Auto Comp. Ltd

The appeal is allowed; the

…upplied to the customer. The framers were aware that the customer may merely use such goods as an input for the goods manufactured by him. Yet clause 4 provides in categoric terms that the 9 (2005) 8 SCC 308 10 (2006) 2 SCC 439 11 (2005) 7 SCC 528 9 exemption is lost if the goods bear the brand/trade name of another. Clause 4 does not state that the exemption is lost only in respect of such goods as reach the market. It does not carve out an exception for goods manufactured for captive consumption. The framers meant what they provided. The exemption was to be available o…

M/S. Bhupendra Steel (P) Ltd vs. Commnr. of Central Excise

…http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 172 of 2003 Bhupendra Steel (P) Ltd. .....Appellant(s) - Versus - Commissioner of Central Excise .....Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T BHAN, J. 1. This Appeal has been filed by the appellant-assessee under Section 35-L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for shor…