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

50] 14. This view of the law was reiterated in Government of India v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd., (1995) 4 SCC 349. Interestingly, in paragraph 39 of the judgment, cost of transportation from the factory gate to the place of removal not forming part of excise duty was conceded by the revenue. 15. Section 4 as substituted

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

50. (1-A) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), the price referred to in that sub-section in respect of imported goods shall be determined in accordance with the rules made in this behalf. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1) or sub-section (1-A), if the Board is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient

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

50 per kg. As per the assessee, it was exporting polyester staple fiber during the relevant period at an average price of 36 per kg against its own ₹ advance licence for exports. 6) Advance licence is issued under the EXIM Policy. The holder of the advance licence could procure imported raw material against the said licence for manufacture of finished

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

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

transfer of goods to their destination, which process may also involve clearance at subsequent stages during forwarding operations. In the opinion of the larger Bench, the procurer of orders on commission basis renders services which are not connected with such clearing and forwarding operations, which have bearing on the movement of goods. It also mentioned that normally

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