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

Sections 14 and 14(1-A) are clear and explicit. The Rules and the Act, therefore, must be construed, having regard to the basic principles of interpretation in mind. 11. What would, therefore, be excluded for computing the assessable value for the purpose of levy of customs duty, inter alia, has clearly been stated therein, namely, any amount paid

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

Appeals are disposed of

price would be left to the whims and fancies of the assessing authority. This argument was repelled by this Court after setting out Sections 2(g) and 2(ja), which define “sale” and “works contract”. The Court then went on to discuss Sections 9(2) and 13(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Section 9(2) of the Central

M/S. K.R.C.D. (I) PVT. LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

transfers data from the stamper to a CD. The programme which is duplicated on the CD is owned by the customer who is either himself the distributor or is a copyright owner. The distributor/copyright holder then, upon receipt of the duplicate copies from the appellant loads part of the royalty paid to the music producer on each such CD which

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

40 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In the first appeal, the period involved for the purposes of excise duty is 01.03.1997 to 16.04.1998. The assessee was originally M/s. RPG CEAT Group Company. Later on 'RPG SATL' and 'Goodyear' entered into a Joint Venture Agreement dated 10.09.1993 to form a third company in the name of M/s. SATL

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

The appeal is dismissed with

40 between the partners M/s. Lintec, Germany and M/s. Marshall. 14.3 Further the agreement includes the cost of transportation of the imported components to the factory of M/s. Marshall. As per their Technical 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