9911796707
| TMI General Search |
|
Advanced Search Options
Showing 81 to 88 of 88 Records Search Text: Tansi |
| Search Results |
| Case-Laws (87) Circulars (1) |
|
2005 (6) TMI 10 - CESTAT, BANGALORE The Tribunal held that the fabricated structures by M/s. AFCONS were not classified as goods, as they were deemed non-marketable and had become part of immovable structures. Consequently, the Revenue's demand was quashed, and both parties' appeals were dismissed. The Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Original, determining that the fabricated items were not excisable.
2001 (5) TMI 671 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI The majority opinion held that cutting marble blocks into slabs did not amount to manufacture, thus the goods were not excisable. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. The Vice-President and Third Member, however, disagreed and proposed remanding the case for further consideration based on the new tariff and amendments to the Central Excise Act.
1996 (11) TMI 205 - CEGAT, MADRAS The Tribunal allowed the appellants' plea on limitation, holding that the demand for duty was barred by limitation as the charge of suppression with intent to evade duty was not substantiated. The Tribunal did not address the merits of the case regarding the excisability of the goods, leaving it open for consideration without making any specific observations.
1991 (11) TMI 213 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment was set aside. The case was remitted to the trial court for rehearing and, if necessary, for holding a meeting of different classes of unsecured creditors to obtain their consent in accordance with the law. The court emphasized the need for proper classification of creditors to ensure fair and equitable treatment, as required by Section 391 of the Companies Act. There was no order as to costs.
2002 (8) TMI 158 - CEGAT, CHENNAI The Tribunal found that the Department failed to establish under-valuation of goods with credible evidence, noting coercion in recording statements and selective reliance on favorable statements. The quantification of demand was deemed inflated without proper correlation to plywood quantity. The reliance on a single dealer's statement for higher selling price of plywood was unsupported. The recovery of a price slip was considered ineffective due to lack of opportunity for appellants. While the extended period of limitation was upheld, penalties were reduced or set aside due to insufficient evidence. The final order set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals with consequential relief.
2015 (10) TMI 154 - CESTAT CHENNAI The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, M/s. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB), on all issues. It held that the activities did not amount to manufacturing, nullifying duty demands and upholding refunds. The Tribunal clarified the inadmissibility of CENVAT credit for the activities in question but allowed credit for other duty-liable activities. Additionally, it determined that the scrap sold was not subject to duty. The appeals were allowed, and related applications were disposed of accordingly.
2021 (8) TMI 339 - CESTAT MUMBAI The Tribunal held that the refund claim was barred by limitation as it was filed seven years after surrendering registration, despite the appellants' arguments of pending proceedings. The Commissioner (Appeals) was deemed unjustified in rejecting the refund claim on merits when the Assistant Commissioner had not done so. Member (Judicial) disagreed with the majority, suggesting a remand to consider both limitation and merits. However, the majority decision supported the rejection of the refund claim on both grounds, in line with prior legal precedents.
2001 (3) TMI 1038 - CESTAT CHENNAI The Tribunal remanded the case for further consideration on the issues of under-valuation and alleged clandestine removal of goods, emphasizing the necessity of concrete evidence and the right to cross-examination. The finding on misdeclaration and misclassification of plywood was set aside due to the failure to establish compliance with specific classification criteria. The Tribunal also instructed a re-examination of the evidence concerning the independence of certain entities involved in the case.
|
