M/S. PUROLATOR INDIA LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III

Appeal is disposed of accordingly

transfers, the appellant filed declarations under Rule 173C with the excise department. In these declarations, the appellant claimed deduction towards Sales Tax, Cash Discount and Volume Discount on excise duty payable to arrive at the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. 3. Apart from undertaking manufacturing activities, the appellant at times also receives

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND C.E.NAGPUR vs. M/S. ISPAT INDUSTRIES LTD

11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by invoking extended period of limitation of five years. (iii) I impose Penalty of Rs.2,43,31,003/- (Rs. Two Crores Forty Three Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Three only), upon them under Rule 173Q and 9(2) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise

COMMNR.,CUSTOMS & CENT.EXCISE AURANGABAD vs. M/S. ROOFIT INDUSTRIES LTD

Appeal is allowed restoring the order passed by the Adjudicating

11A(1) of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1994 and Civil Appeal No. 5541 of 2004 Page 2 of 15 Page 3 JUDGMENT why penalty under Section 11AC and interest under Section 11AB should not be imposed. The assessee replied and was given personal hearing. Learned Adjudicating authority vide its order

NIRLON LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed in part and disposed of in the

transferred to Tarapur factory were using identical raw materials and identical process. For this reason, the appellant believed that the products were comparable goods in terms of Rule 6(b)(i). (ii) Both the goods fall under the same sub-heading of the tariff entry as both are admittedly TCY. (iii) The price list which was filed by the appellant

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S NESTLE INDIA LTD

transferred only to two sister concerns and no sale is involved, the assessable value of instant tea removed to the respondent’s own units would be determined on the basis of the export price of similar goods and not 115% of the cost of production. 2 Page 3 JUDGMENT 3. The order in original dated 31.5.2006 passed by the Additional

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD vs. M/S.GOODYEAR SOUTH ASIA TYRES P. L.&ORS

11A(1) of the Act for suppression of facts and willful mis-declaration of Assessable value by assessee with intent to evade payment of Central Excise duty. The notice was also issued to four individuals, working for the assessee. C.A. Nos. 1947-1950/2003 etc. 3 Page 4 JUDGMENT The assessee rebutted the aforesaid allegations in the show cause notice

M/S. ESCORTS LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, FARIDABAD

The appeal is allowed accordingly

transferred any transmission assemblies to any other person. However, they have been supplying the transmission assembly to their own units at Nagpur and Rudhrapur for manufacturing tractors. (b) It is submitted that this letter can at most lead to a conclusion that the transmission assembly made by M & M is marketable. 50. The show cause notice has placed reliance