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

1 Page 2 JUDGMENT sheets/coils, and Galvanized/colour coated/sheets, falling under Chapter 72 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Intelligence revealed that M/s Ispat were indulging in evasion of central excise duty by a mis-declaration that their factory gate was the place of removal, and not the buyer’s premises, consequent to which freight charges

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

Appeals are disposed of

6) 23. To similar effect is this Court’s judgment in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty, (1981) 2 SCC 460, held:- “Section 45 charges the profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset to income tax. The asset must be one which falls within the contemplation of the section. It must bear that quality which brings Section

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

Appeal is allowed restoring the order passed by the Adjudicating

6. We have heard the parties at length. In our view, Section 4 has to be read as a whole. Under Section 4(1)(a), the normal price is the price at which goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee to a buyer in the course of wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removal, where

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

M/S. PUROLATOR INDIA LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III

Appeal is disposed of accordingly

6 Page 7 JUDGMENT ''transaction value" means the price actually paid or payable for the goods, when sold, and includes in addition to amount charged as priced, any amount that they 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 sale

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

1 of 29 Page 2 JUDGMENT 2 2. The appellant/assessee herein, which is a public sector undertaking of the Government of India, has been selling iron and steel products, that are manufactured by it, to the Indian Railways. For this purpose, contract was signed between the said two parties and the goods were being sold to the Indian Railways

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

1 “PLANT UNITS’ attached hereto and made thereof;” Project is defined as: “1.1.8. “Project” shall mean the design, procurement, construction, erection and start-up of the plant.” The most material clause of the agreement relates to the scope of supply which is contained in clause 2, which reads as under:- “2.0. SCOPE OF SUPPLY: 2.1. Technical consultant shall render following

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

6 above. Civil Appeal No. 1834 of 2006 Page 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

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

The appeal is allowed

1 Page 2 JUDGMENT distributor who, ultimately, gets the said CDs duplicated as has been stated aforesaid by the appellant on job work basis, and who then sells the CDs in the market to the ultimate customer. The facts also demonstrate that the appellant/assessee is only given the master CD from which it duplicates such master tape/CD on blank

NIRLON LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed in part and disposed of in the

1 Page 2 JUDGMENT (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') declaring the wholesale price of TCY for such goods by showing the same price at which the goods are sold by the appellant at the factory gate to the third parties. Such price list in Proforma Part I under Section 4 of the Act was filed

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

6) As is clear from the reading of the aforesaid extracted portion of the order, the Tribunal has rested its impugned decision on its earlier judgment in the case of Prabhat Zarda (supra) and the reasons contained in the said judgment are restated in support of the view taken by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment. 7) It so happened

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

1 of 1956).” The expression 'in the business of each other' clearly C.A. Nos. 1947-1950/2003 etc. 5 Page 6 JUDGMENT denotes that interest of the two persons have to be mutual, i.e., in each other, in order to treat them as related persons. We find from the order of the Member Judicial that only on the ground that

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