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

Appeal is disposed of accordingly

17. The only question that falls for our determination is whether Section 4 as amended in the year 2000 makes no change to the aforesaid position. 22 Page 23 JUDGMENT 18. It can be seen that Section 4 as amended introduces the concept of “transaction value” so that on each removal of excisable goods, the “transaction value” of such goods

SHABINA ABRAHAM vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS

iv) In relation to goods comprised to Item No.18-A of the First Schedule, includes sizing, beaming, warping, wrapping, winding or reeling, or any one or more of these processes, or the conversion of any form of the said goods into another form of such goods; And the word “manufacturer” shall be construed accordingly and shall include not only a person

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ESSAR STEEL LTD

Section makes it clear that customs duty is chargeable on goods by reference to their value at a price at which such goods or like goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale at the time and place of importation in the course of international trade. This would mean that any amount that is referable to the imported goods post

COMMNR.,CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, KERALA vs. M/S. LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD

Appeals are disposed of

price of the goods and materials supplied in a building contract which had been entered into in two distinct and separate parts as stated above.” (at para 36) 5. This is the historical setting within which the present controversy arises. 6. Service tax was introduced by the Finance Act, 1994 and various services were set out in Section 65 thereof

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR-I vs. M/S. INDORAMA SYNTHETICS (I) LTD

17 of 23 Page 18 JUDGMENT condition, as sought to be drawn by the learned counsel for the assessee, would not apply to the instant case. It was possible if the transaction between the buyers and the assessee was seen in isolation. However, in the present case, it needs to be emphasized at the cost of repetition that the resultant

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

price fixation. It was contended that the sale of goods by assessee to these two companies was on principal to principal basis and at arm's length. The Commissioner heard the matter and thereafter, passed Orders-in-Original dated 11.05.2000 confirming the demand in the show cause notice. Some penalties were also imposed. The matter was taken in appeal before

M/S. COAL HANDLERS PVT. LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA

The appeals are allowed and

17, 1999 for the service of 'handling agents' (C&F Agent). Certification of Registration was granted on November 18, 1999. Thereafter, on May 30, 2000, the appellant surrendered the said Registration Certificate on the ground that services rendered by them were not covered by Section 65(25) of the Act. The application for surrender was, however, rejected by the Superintendent