WIPRO LTD. vs. ASST. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms with no order as to

d) the value of any part of the proceeds of any subsequent resale, disposal, or use of the imported goods that accrues, directly or indirectly, to the seller; (e) all other payments actually made or to be made as a condition of sale of the imported goods, by the buyer to the seller, or by the buyer to a third

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

d)“transaction value” means the price actually paid or payable for the ‘goods, when sold, and includes in addition to the amount charged as price, any amount that the buyer is liable to pay to, or on behalf of, the assessee, by reason of, or in connection with the sale, whether payable at the time of the sale

SHABINA ABRAHAM vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS

D G M E N T R.F. Nariman, J. 1. “Nothing is certain except death and taxes.” Thus spake Benjamin Franklin in his letter of November 13, 1789 to Jean Baptiste Leroy. To tax the dead is a contradiction in terms. Tax laws are made by the living to tax the living. What survives the dead person is what

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

5 (1842) 2 QB 851 Civil Appeal No. 1834 of 2006 Page 15 of 23 Page 16 JUDGMENT desire' promised to convey the house to the widow during her life or for so long as she should continue a window, 'provided nevertheless and it is hereby further agreed' that she should pay £1 per annum towards the ground rent

M/S. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. (UNIT BHILAI STEEL PLANT) ISPAT BHAWAN . THROUGH ITS SR. MANAGER (F AND A) vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE RAIPUR

transferred to various Branch Sales Offices from where they are sold to the customers. The sales either from the factory or from the BSOs are in terms of purchase Civil Appeal No. 2150 of 2012 & Ors. Page 3 of 29 Page 4 JUDGMENT 4 orders received from the customers. The assessee sold the rails to the Indian Railways in terms

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

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

5. An appeal by the respondent to CEGAT succeeded, and CEGAT by its judgment dated 24.6.2003 set aside the order of the Commissioner holding that the plant could have been set up and could run without the supply of technical knowledge. Secondly, the fact that the technical supply agreement was signed prior to the agreement for supply of machinery would

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

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

D G M E N T A. K. SIKRI, J. These two appeals are filed by the Commissioner Central Excise, Aurangabad, wherein the respondent arrayed is same. The issue involved also is common which pertains to the valuation of goods, sold by the assessee, for the purposes of charging excise duty. For this reason, both the appeals were taken

M/S IVRCL. INFRASTRUCTURE & PROJECTS LTD vs. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI

The appeal is dismissed with

D G M E N T R.F. Nariman, J. 1. The facts necessary to decide this appeal are as follows. The appellant entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with M/s Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Limited for the purpose of construction of roads in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Joint Venture was awarded a contract by the National Highways Authority

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

The appeals are allowed and

D G M E N T A.K. SIKRI, J. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7215 OF 2004 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5159 OF 2013 Appellants in both these appeals are the assessees and the issue involved in these appeals is common. Both the appellants provide certain services as Agents under the contracts signed with their respective Principals. The issue is as to whether