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

5. Where any excisable goods are sold in the circumstances specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Act except the circumstances in which the excisable goods are sold for delivery at a place other than the place of removal, then the value of such excisable goods shall be deemed to be the transaction value

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

Appeal is allowed restoring the order passed by the Adjudicating

Section 4(1)(a) was now providing for different prices at different places of removal that the definition of the term "place of removal" had to be enlarged. Thus the amendment was not negativing the judgments of this Court. If that had been the intention it would have been specifically provided that even where price was the same/uniform all over

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

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

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

transferred to ESSAR, unless otherwise specified in the Agreements. 9.5. ESSAR shall take all reasonable measure to avoid disclosures of the Technical Information to any third party and shall disclose the said Technical Information to third parties only to the extent mentioned in Clause 9.3 above. ESSAR shall use the Technical information only for the purpose of the execution

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

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

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. 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

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

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

The appeals are allowed and

5) The appellants have agreed that the issue involved stands decided in the case of Prabhat Zarda Factory (India) Ltd. (Supra). The Tribunal under the said judgment has observed that as per definition of clearing and forwarding agent, he is a person who is engaged for providing any service, either directly or indirectly connected with clearing and forwarding operations

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

The appeal is dismissed with

Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, certain items were exempted from payment of customs duty and additional duty leviable under the Customs Tariff Act. We are concerned with serial No.217 of this notification which reads as follows: “217. 84 or any other Goods specified in List 11 Nil Nil 38 Chapter required for construction of roads.” The conditions