Similarly, in Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry v. ACER India Ltd.

8 SCC 173Reported decision2004#5084 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2006 to 2018.

Judgments citing Similarly, in Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry v. ACER India Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs. M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd. Through Its Secretary

C.A. No.-003159-003159 - 2004Supreme Court30 Mar 2016

Bench: Us. “1. Whether Section 4 Of The Central Excise Act, 1944 (As Substituted With Effect From 01.07.2000) & The Definition Of "Transaction Value" In Clause (D) Of Sub-

Section 3Section 4Section 4(1)(a)

…e Act, Section 4 (1) (a) as substituted with effect from 1.7.2000 and Section 4 (3) (d) defining “transaction value” came up for consideration before another Three Judges Bench of this Court. In the said case, the question that arose is 2 (2004) 8 SCC 173 Page 7 JUDGMENT 7 whether value of software attached to a computer, which is otherwise exempt from duty, is liable to be included in the assessable value of the computer for the purposes of levy of duty. Paragraphs 67, 69 and 84 of the judgment in Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Acer Ltd. (supra) would be relevant and…

L.M.L. Ltd vs. Commnr. of Customs

C.A. No.-003764-003764 - 2003Supreme Court21 Sept 2010

…REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3764 OF 2003 L.M.L. Ltd. …. Appellant Versus Commissioner of Customs …. Respondent JUDGMENT Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. An application being I.A. No. 3 was filed in this appeal and the same was allowed by this Court vide Order dated 26/02/2004. The dispute in the present appeal is between the customs authority and the assessee regarding liability to pay duty by the appellant. The Airport Authority of India has absolutely no role to play in the said dispute. The I.A. No. 3 was filed only because the consignment i…

Anjaleem Enterpises Pvt. Ltd vs. Commnr. of Central Excise, Ahmedabad

C.A. No.-002487-002487 - 2000Supreme Court16 Jan 2006

For Respondent: Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad

Section 11ASection 35

…mained classifiable under CH 85.24. In this connection, learned counsel placed reliance on note 6 to chapter 85. Reliance was also placed on the judgments of this court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Acer India Ltd. reported in (2004) 8 SCC 173 and in the case of PSI Data Systems Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in (1997) 2 SCC 78. Shri T.M. Mohd. Yusuf, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the department, on the other hand, submitted that note 6 to chapter 85 was not applicable for the computer-based product, namely STD-PCO unit, as the programmed EPROM…