M/S. MODIPON FIBRE COMPANY vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT

35L of Central Excise Act, 1944 against order dated 3.7.2001 passed by the Customs Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal ("CEGAT") holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction in respect of turnover tax ("TOT") only at 0.5% and not at 2% as claimed. Civil Appeal Nos. 8529-8531 of 2001 3. The appellant-assessee is engaged in the manufacture

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR vs. M/S. SUPER SYNOTEX (INDIA) LTD.

In the result, both sets of appeals stand disposed of

35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for brevity, the Act) being inter- connected and inter-linked was heard together and is disposed of by a common judgment. It is necessary to clarify that the Revenue has preferred the appeals against the decisions rendered by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) at various Benches whereby

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

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR vs. M/S. BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LTD

Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the judgment dated 20.7.2001 delivered by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal ("CEGAT") in Appeal No. E/1758/2000. 2. The issue which arises in this civil appeal is as to whether in the absence of any "sale", rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 would have any application

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX vs. M/S ELEGANT DEVELOPERS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as made applicable to Service Tax matters by Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. A. BRIEF FACTS 5. Succinctly stated, the facts relevant and essential for disposal of these appeals are noted hereinbelow. 6. The respondent, a partnership firm which was engaged in business of purchasing, selling, developing, and dealing

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI vs. M/S. ALLIED PHOTOGRAPHICS INDIA LTD

Appeal stands allowed

prices charged by M/s AGIL to its dealers. In the Writ Petition, M/s AGIL relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Bombay Tyre (supra). By order dated 28.9.1993 passed by the High Court, the Department was allowed to withdraw Rs.1,25,34,988.97 with undertaking to bring back the amount with interest as and when

COMMISSIONER OF GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S CITIBANK N.A

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

35L(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Section 83 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. They are directed against the Orders dated 16.11.2018 and 20.11.2019, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short). 1 Digitally signed by Nidhi Ahuja Date

D.C.L. POLYESTER LTD., NAGPUR vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS

In the result, civil appeal is dismissed, with no order as to

section 35L(b) of Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as "the 1944 Act") is \026 whether the product, termed by the assessee as "sweeping wastes" is classifiable under chapter heading 39.15 (waste) or whether it is classifiable under chapter heading 39.07 (Primary Form of Plastic) of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred

M/S MATSUSHITA TELEVISION &AUDIO (I)LTD vs. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS

Section 35L(B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is directed against the Order passed by the Central Excise & Customs & Gold Control Tribunal (for short, ’CEGAT’) dated 24.8.01. By the said Order the CEGAT (Tribunal) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal. A short question which arises for determination in this civil appeal is: whether the royalty payment was connected with

M/S DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL vs. COMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI

transferred the compound (kimam). The said enquiries indicated receipt of the said compound (kimam) in balties at Barotiwala during the period 16.2.1995 to 20.12.1996. Based on the above investigations carried out by the department, it appeared that the compound (kimam) was excisable and had been manufactured and cleared without http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8 obtaining