9911796707
| TMI General Search |
|
Advanced Search Options
Showing 21 to 40 of 88 Records Search Text: Tansi |
| Search Results |
| Case-Laws (87) Circulars (1) |
|
1996 (1) TMI 136 - SC Order The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, ruling that authorities can impose altered classification rates retrospectively for up to six months before notice under Section 11A, even without allegations of suppression or concealment.
1991 (10) TMI 161 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI The tribunal upheld the Collector's decision, confirming that the products, picture varnish, and Gloss-o-Gloss, are correctly classified under Tariff Item 3208.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, based on their composition and the provisions of Chapter Note 3 to Chapter 32. The tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments challenging the classification.
2003 (11) TMI 615 - Supreme Court The SC upheld the HC's judgment, acquitting all accused of charges related to the TANSI Foundry property sale. The Court found no evidence of conspiracy, criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act, or violations of IPC Sections 169 and 409. The appeals and special leave petition were dismissed, emphasizing the necessity for high standards of probity in public life.
2007 (7) TMI 31 - CESTAT, CHENNAI The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai upheld the demand for Service tax, Education Cess, interest, and penalties against the appellants for security services rendered without payment from 2000-01 to 2004-05. The appellants' claim for exemption under Notification No. 56/98-ST was remanded to the original authority for further examination, emphasizing the need for evidence supporting their contentions and the opportunity to present their case fairly. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of verifying services rendered and amounts collected over relying solely on income-tax records, allowing the appellants a chance to substantiate their exemption eligibility.
1997 (12) TMI 203 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, determining that the rubber lining process on tanks did not amount to manufacture for excise duty purposes. The lack of evidence for suppression, coupled with the process not creating a new product, led to setting aside the confiscation order and penalties imposed by the Addl. Collector. The tribunal's decision was based on established legal precedents and interpretations of the term "manufacture" under the Central Excise Act.
2002 (2) TMI 446 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi waived the pre-deposit of duty and penalty for M/s. Plyboard Industries Ltd., remanding the matter back to the Commissioner of Central Excise for further examination. The issue revolved around the interpretation of Notification No. 175/86 concerning the clubbing of clearances and the application of SSI exemption to all units of a company. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a detailed assessment in light of relevant legal provisions and precedents, allowing the appeal by directing a reevaluation of the case.
1997 (2) TMI 195 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI The Tribunal upheld the decision in favor of M/s. Tamil Nadu Mopeds Ltd., rejecting the Revenue's appeal. It clarified the interpretation of conditions under Notification No. 105/80-C.E., emphasizing the need to consider each unit separately for valuation purposes and confirming the eligibility of the company for small scale exemption. The judgment highlighted procedural errors in the adjudication and ruled that the total value of plant and machinery should not be aggregated for different units under the notification.
1998 (5) TMI 189 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding Micro Cellular Rubber Sheets on both merits and limitation, setting aside the duty demand. For Rubber Waste and Scrap, the appeal was allowed solely on the basis of limitation, with the Tribunal determining that the demand was time-barred. Consequently, the impugned order was entirely set aside.
1999 (11) TMI 463 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI The Tribunal set aside the Collector's decision denying the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 to the appellants, M/s. M.P. State Mining Corpn. Ltd., based on ownership by the State Government. The Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, considering the appellants' argument supported by decisions of the High Court and Tribunal recognizing entities like the appellants as State Government undertakings eligible for the exemption. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of these legal precedents and granted the appellants a personal hearing during the fresh adjudication process, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellants.
1998 (8) TMI 275 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI The judgment concluded that cutting and welding activities for construction purposes, such as trusses, beams, and purlines, do not amount to manufacturing based on established precedents. The court emphasized that these processes do not result in the creation of new dutiable goods, aligning with previous decisions and interpretations of the law. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, affirming that cutting and welding for construction do not change the identity of the product to warrant dutiability, as supported by consistent rulings in similar cases. Subsequent appeals followed this interpretation, leading to relief for the appellants and the rejection of the Revenue's claims.
1999 (1) TMI 246 - CEGAT, MADRAS The tribunal held that cross arms were non-excisable goods based on established case law and directed the exclusion of their value from total clearances for Small Scale Industries (SSI) exemption. The tribunal set aside the previous orders, remanded the matter for recomputation, and instructed the Commissioner to issue a speaking order after hearing the appellants. The appeals succeeded on remand with specific directions for reevaluation of clearances.
2001 (9) TMI 214 - CEGAT, CHENNAI The Tribunal held that the process of rubberising and re-rubberising does not amount to manufacture, as established by previous judgments, including the Apex Court's rulings. Additionally, the demands were found to be barred by time, leading to the decision to set aside the Commissioner's order and allow the appeal with consequential relief.
2019 (11) TMI 484 - CESTAT CHENNAI The Tribunal held that the assessee was not required to reverse the CENVAT Credit in its closing stock of inputs and final goods as on 31.03.2005. The demand for reversal was based on the appellant's shift from the CENVAT scheme to exemption under Notification No. 08/2003-C.E. The Tribunal referenced legal precedents, including the Supreme Court decision in Collector of Central Excise, Pune Vs. M/s. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd., and concluded that the appellant had complied with the rules. The Tribunal also rejected the Revenue's claim of suppression due to lack of new evidence and set aside the demand, allowing the appeal with consequential benefits.
2014 (8) TMI 555 - CESTAT CHENNAI The Tribunal ruled in favor of the applicant, a job worker of M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., in a case involving excise duty and service tax liabilities. The Tribunal found that the processes undertaken by the applicant, such as cutting, drilling, and welding steel plates into boiler components, qualified for exemption under relevant notifications. It was determined that the job work materials were used in the manufacture of final products, leading to the waiver of tax, interest, and penalty pending appeal. The Tribunal emphasized previous decisions supporting the classification of job work activities as manufacturing, ultimately siding with the applicant and staying recovery pending appeal.
2008 (2) TMI 729 - CESTAT, CHENNAI The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant manufacturing unit, holding that clearances to its sister Export Oriented Undertaking (EOU) should not be considered in the computation of aggregate value for Small Scale Industries (SSI) purposes. The demand for duty on the manufacturing unit based on such clearances was deemed unjustified. By interpreting the relevant SSI Notifications and case law precedent, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument, leading to a waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the demanded amount exceeding Rs. 7 lakhs.
2008 (2) TMI 367 - MADRAS HIGH COURT The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, a government-owned corporation, granting the exemption under Notification 175/86-C.E. despite the initial rejection by the single Judge. The Court emphasized a purposive interpretation to support government entities, distinguishing the case from previous decisions. It accepted the appellant's argument, overturning the earlier decision and quashing orders by Respondents 1 and 2. The Court clarified that previous concessions did not bind parties on legal questions, allowing for a different view. The appellant was granted the exemption without costs for the relevant year.
1976 (3) TMI 90 - ITAT MADRAS The ITAT ruled in favor of the appellant, a dealer in iron and steel, in a tax dispute under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The ITAT determined that certain purchases, like fabricated centering sheets, were not to be classified as iron and steel for taxation, but as distinct products subject to multi-point taxation. However, the resale of identified scrap goods was exempt from tax. The appellant's tax liability was adjusted, resulting in relief of Rs. 1,27,081.89 at 3 1/2 per cent, with an addition of Rs. 38,759.74 in taxable sales.
1998 (8) TMI 618 - CESTAT NEW DELHI The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI held that the processes undertaken by Haryana State Electricity Board on parts for transmission towers do not amount to manufacture. As a result, the products were deemed non-excisable under Tariff Item 68, leading to a favorable outcome for the assessees in the appeals.
2001 (6) TMI 333 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI The Tribunal held that the aluminium structure was not exigible to excise duty under sub-heading 7610.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. It was determined that no new marketable commodity emerged from the fabrication process, as the aluminium sheets did not transform into a distinct product with a unique name, use, or character. Therefore, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals).
2001 (1) TMI 186 - CEGAT, CHENNAI The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order allowing the refund claim of the respondent assessee for duty paid under protest on certain line materials. It was determined that the processes undertaken did not amount to manufacturing, and the items could not be classified as goods under Chapter sub-heading 7308.90. Previous Tribunal decisions and the non-marketable nature of the items supported this conclusion, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeals based on established legal principles and precedents cited by the respondent.
|
