THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX, CALICUT vs. M/S. CERA BOARD AND DOORS, KANNUR, KERALA

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

35L(1)(b) of the Central Excise   Act,   1944   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “the   Act”), questioning the correctness of the orders passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Bangalore   (CESTAT)   in   seven   different   batches   of   cases,   but arising out of similar facts and raising identical questions.  2. For the purpose of convenience, the facts

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX DELHI vs. QUICK HEAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

35L(b) of the Act 1944. 13. The revenue has in its memorandum of appeal formulated the following questions of law for consideration of this Court:­ 6 “(i) Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that the transaction in the present case results in the right to use the software and would amount deemed sale? (ii) Whether the Antivirus Software

LIPI BOILERS LTD. THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

35L(1)(b) of the Act, 1944. C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES (I). Submissions on behalf of the appellant/assessee 15. Mr. Prakash Shah, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee, submitted that the contract was for designing, procuring, manufacturing and supplying of machinery and equipment for a steam generating plant and to do other works

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE JAIPUR vs. ASSOCIATED STONE INDUSTRIES

Section 35L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 in- volve the interpretation of the Notification No. 179/77 CE dated 18.6.1977. The Notification read thus: "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10 rule (1) of rule 8 of 128 the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government

M/S. INDCON STRUCTURALS (P) LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI

35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the Final Order No. 1557/2000 dated 14th November, 2000 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short "the CEGAT"), Chennai, in appeal No. E/1554/94-D- MD, setting aside the Order dated 16th May, 1994 recorded by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD vs. M/S. ALDEC CORPORATION

Appeals are dismissed, with

section 35L(b) of Central Excise Act, 1944 is \026 whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner was right in holding that the fragmented activities of M/s Aldec Corporation, M/s Vitthaleshwara Painting Industries (VPI) and M/s Srinivasa Rolling and Engineering Works (SREW) taken individually or jointly resulted in "manufacture" of a separate, independent and distinct

M/S PRAGATI SILICONS PVT. LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI

The appeal is allowed

35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Tribunal by the impugned order has rejected the appeal filed by the appellant seeking the classification of "plastic name plates" under Chapter 87 as ‘parts and accessories’ of motor vehicles and instead classified it as ‘other plastic products’ under Chapter 39. FACTS 1. The appellant

M/S. QUINN INDIA LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD

In the result, we allow this appeal and set aside the

Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short "the Act") against the Final Order No. 1860/2000 dated 22.12.2000 recorded by the Customs, Excise, Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Zone Bench, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in Civil Appeal Nos. E/1299/94-C and E/CO/366/94-C. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed

M/S. WARDEN AND CO.(INDIA) PVT. LTD. vs. THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

The appeal is dismissed

Section 35L of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’). 2. The appellant has been manufacturing fibre drum, which consists of a circular tube exclusively made out of paper or paper-board.. The lid and the bottom are made of ply wood which is reinforced with mild steel rings and clamps. According