9911796707
| TMI General Search |
|
Advanced Search Options
Showing 1 to 20 of 88 Records Search Text: Tansi |
| Search Results |
| Case-Laws (87) Circulars (1) |
|
2017 (12) TMI 617 - CESTAT CHENNAI The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that waste and scrap sent for conversion to a job worker for further manufacturing processes did not attract excise duty. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following relevant procedures and highlighted the distinction between waste and scrap used in manufacturing processes and those that are no longer useful.
2023 (3) TMI 434 - CESTAT CHENNAI The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the duty demand and penalty imposed. The decision was based on the absence of evidence supporting the allegation of suppression of facts and the appellant's compliance with duty payment on the cleared intermediate goods.
2018 (7) TMI 1371 - MADRAS HIGH COURT The court quashed the impugned proceedings and allowed the writ petition, highlighting errors in the demand for Cenvat credit, interest, and penalty. The court found that the petitioner, a government undertaking, was not required to reverse validly taken credit upon entering the exemption regime for small scale industries. Additionally, the court held that the demand beyond one year from the relevant date was unsustainable and that the enhancement of penalty post-remand without a cross-appeal was unjustified.
2017 (9) TMI 1315 - CESTAT CHENNAI The Tribunal upheld duty liability on job work for steel structures and tower components, considering processes undertaken by the appellants as constituting manufacturing. Penalties under Section 11AC were upheld due to the appellants' omission to disclose information, while the penalty under Rule 25 was set aside. The appeal was dismissed, affirming duty liability and penalties under Section 11AC, with the exclusion of the penalty under Rule 25.
2015 (10) TMI 1027 - CESTAT CHENNAI The appeal was allowed with consequential relief as the Member (T) determined that unjust enrichment did not apply in the case. The refund claim, initially credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund due to lack of evidence against unjust enrichment, was sanctioned in favor of the appellant. The timing of provisional assessment and discounts given to consumers before clearance were crucial factors in the decision, with the Member relying on established legal principles and precedents to set aside the order and grant the refund to the appellant.
2015 (5) TMI 770 - CESTAT CHENNAI The Tribunal upheld the decision to deny SSI exemption to the appellants under Notification No. 1/93-CE for certain goods due to their choice to pay full duty on other items. The Tribunal found that simultaneous availment of modvat and SSI exemption on different goods was impermissible post-amendment, leading to the rejection of the appeal. The judgment highlighted the necessity of complying with exemption provisions and confirmed the duty demand imposed on the appellants for not opting for SSI exemption on specific goods.
2013 (11) TMI 1128 - CESTAT CHENNAI The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai granted the applicants a waiver of duty, interest, and penalty regarding the clearance value of waste and scrap sent to a job worker for conversion during the manufacture of TNEB lining materials. The Tribunal found that the job worker had already paid duty on the materials, making the invocation of Notification No. 214/86-CE or Rule 16A unnecessary. It was also determined that the clearance value of the waste and scrap did not impact the total clearance value of the finished goods. The recovery of duty, interest, and penalty was stayed during the appeals' pendency.
2007 (8) TMI 363 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS The court dismissed the writ petition filed by a State-owned company (referred to as TANSI) challenging the direction to deposit Rs. 3 lakhs during an appeal process for duty liability. The court emphasized that the CESTAT's discretion to waive pre-deposit was valid, and the lack of a strong prima facie case did not justify interference under Article 226. Despite considering the directed deposit amount as minimal for TANSI, the court found the writ petition misconceived due to the delay caused by non-compliance. The court directed the disposal of the appeal within three months of the order upon payment of the pre-deposit amount.
2007 (3) TMI 460 - CESTAT, CHENNAI The Tribunal allowed the appeals, ruling in favor of the job workers. It held that the independently sourced materials used by the job worker did not disqualify them from claiming exemption under Notification No. 214/86. As the principal manufacturer supplied the necessary raw materials, the additional materials obtained by the job worker were deemed consumables that did not alter the essential character of the final product. Therefore, the job worker was entitled to the benefit of the Notification, and the Tribunal set aside the previous denials, granting relief to the appellants.
2007 (3) TMI 56 - CESTAT,CHENNAI The appeals were made against the denial of the benefit of Notification No. 214/86-C.E. to job workers for manufacturing "Air heater block assembly" supplied to a principal manufacturer. The Tribunal clarified that job workers could use materials other than those supplied by the principal manufacturer, as long as the essential character of the final product stemmed from the raw materials provided by the principal manufacturer. As a result, the appeals were allowed, granting relief to the appellants and establishing the importance of raw materials in determining eligibility for exemptions under the Notification.
2004 (12) TMI 472 - CESTAT, CHENNAI The Tribunal granted waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for duty and penalty amounts to the appellants, who were job workers assembling air-heater block assembly. The Tribunal found that the Explanation to Notification No. 214/86 did not explicitly prohibit job workers from using some raw materials, supporting the appellants' case against the denial of benefits and duty demand imposed by the authorities. The Tribunal's interpretation favored the appellants, leading to a favorable outcome in their favor.
2001 (1) TMI 171 - CEGAT, CHENNAI The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Chennai allowed the appeals by Tamil Nadu Govt. Undertaking, granting SSI benefit under Notification No. 175/86 to individual units, not clubbed together. The impugned order was set aside, and appeals were allowed with consequential relief, subject to unjust enrichment provisions.
2000 (1) TMI 359 - CEGAT, MADRAS The appeal was allowed by the Tribunal, overturning the rejection of a refund claim of Rs. 2,57,481.34 under SSI Notification No. 175/86. The Tribunal held that clearances from different factories of the appellant should not be combined, citing precedent from a previous case. The appellant was granted consequential relief, subject to the principle of unjust enrichment.
1999 (4) TMI 301 - CEGAT, MADRAS The appellate tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants in a case concerning the classification of activities involving cutting, drilling, and welding of MS steel for pre-fabricated buildings. The tribunal held that these processes did not amount to manufacturing under the C.E. Act, 1944, and were not classifiable under Chapter Heading 9406.00. Additionally, the tribunal determined that the fabrication of structures did not constitute manufacturing under sub-heading 7308.90 of the CET, overturning the duty liability imposed by the Collector (Appeals). The tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals in favor of the appellants based on established case law and tribunal decisions.
1999 (3) TMI 262 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled that stay sets as per TNEB drawings are not liable to duty as the activity of cutting, drilling, and jointing does not amount to manufacturing. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants.
1998 (8) TMI 308 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT in New Delhi allowed two appeals by M/s. Tansi, determining that Tansi was a laborer and not a manufacturer in a labor contract with the Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. of Tamil Nadu for welding and painting steel sections. The tribunal set aside the Adjudicating Authority's decision.
1998 (3) TMI 371 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI The appellate tribunal overturned the decision of the Assistant Collector and Collector (Appeals), ruling that classification under Chapter 83 prevails over Chapter 73. The tribunal held that goods under sub-heading 8312.90 are not limited to packaging, allowing the appeal and remitting the proceedings back to the Assistant Collector for further action.
1997 (9) TMI 229 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI The Tribunal upheld the Collector's decision, rejecting the Revenue's appeal regarding the classification of wooden boxes as articles of wood or furniture.
1997 (6) TMI 83 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, ruled in 1997 (6) TMI 83 that a demand of Rs. 11,435 could only be raised from the date of the show cause notice proposing revision of classification, not six months prior. Despite the absence of the appellants, the case was decided in their favor based on a recent Supreme Court decision. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.
1996 (8) TMI 256 - CEGAT, MADRAS The Tribunal ruled that the cutting and punching processes conducted by the appellant on angles and channels for transmission towers did not amount to "manufacture" under the Central Excises and Salt Act. As a result, the products were not subject to Central Excise duty, overturning the Department's contention that these activities transformed the nature of the goods, making them dutiable under Heading 7308.90. The Tribunal emphasized that to qualify as "manufacture," a new marketable commodity must be created, and since cutting and punching for structural use did not meet this criteria, the duty demand was deemed erroneous.
|
