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

18. By an Amendment Act which came into effect on 1.7.2000, Section 4 was substituted yet again as follows:- “Section 4. Valuation of excisable goods for purposes of charging of duty of excise. – (1) Where under this Act, the duty of excise is chargeable on any excisable goods with reference to their value, then, on each removal of the goods

WIPRO LTD. vs. ASST. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

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

18 of 37 Page 19 JUDGMENT ordinarily sold, or offered for sale, for delivery at the time and place of importation or exportation, as the case may be, in the course of international trade, where- (a) the seller and the buyer have no interest in the business of each other; or (b) one of them has no interest

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

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

18 of 23 Page 19 JUDGMENT much lower price than the price charged from the general buyers in the normal course of trade as it had obtained the facility of invalidating of advance licences from such buyers and procured imported raw material (duty free) against such licences for manufacturing of finished goods. It is, therefore, alleged that the assessee

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

SHABINA ABRAHAM vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS

price is the sole consideration for the sale:” (4) For the purposes of this section, - (a) “assessee” means the person who is liable to pay the duty of excise under this Act and includes his agent;” 11. Recovery of sums due to Government. - In respect of duty and any other sums of any kind payable to the Central Government under

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

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

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

The appeal is dismissed with

Transfer Contract, M/s. Lintec supplied the drum assembly and the components for the manufacture of the plant by M/s. Marshall. No separate agreement had been entered either by the principal or the local representatives with the importer M/s. IVRCL. I find that the principal and the local representative of the supplier as per their discussion and communications with the importer

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

The appeals are allowed and

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 of Central Excise (SCE), Service Tax Cell, Kolkata-I, Commissionerate on February 08, 2001 by passing the Order