9911796707
| TMI General Search |
|
Advanced Search Options
Showing 31 to 50 of 88 Records Search Text: Tansi |
| Search Results |
| Case-Laws (87) Circulars (1) |
|
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.
The circular addresses the classification of iron and steel ballot boxes used in elections, highlighting discrepancies in their categorization by different collectorates. Some classified them under sub-heading 7326.90 as "other articles of iron and steel," while others under Heading 8303 as "strong boxes." The Board examined the issue, referencing HSN Explanatory Notes, and concluded that these ballot boxes provide reasonable protection against theft and fire. Thus, they are more appropriately classified under Heading 8303. Consequently, pending assessments should be finalized under this classification, and relevant parties should be informed.
1998 (1) TMI 330 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI The Tribunal rejected the revenue's appeal, determining that the processed items did not qualify as new goods for excisability purposes. The decision was based on the analysis of manufacturing processes, emphasizing that cutting and drilling activities did not amount to creating new goods. The Tribunal's ruling aligned with established legal principles and precedents, ultimately dismissing the appeal and cross-objections.
1997 (4) TMI 238 - CEGAT, MADRAS The Tribunal set aside the lower authority's order and remanded the case for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for detailed examination of the manufacturing processes, nature of goods, and marketability. The majority of decisions favored the assessee regarding the non-excisability of the fabricated items. The question of limitation was left open for reconsideration in light of divergent legal interpretations. The Tribunal stressed the importance of thorough analysis before determining excisability and applicability of the longer limitation period.
2004 (9) TMI 698 - Supreme Court The SC allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the NCDRC, State Commission, and District Forum, which had favored the respondent by interpreting "burglary" to include theft without force or violence. The SC upheld the appellant's repudiation of the insurance claim, emphasizing the necessity of force and violence as per the policy. However, the SC decided not to recover the compensation already paid to the respondent on equitable grounds. No order as to costs was made.
1999 (2) TMI 127 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, determining that the items in question, including structural components used in various constructions, are not considered "goods" subject to Central Excise Duty. The Tribunal found that the activities undertaken did not result in the manufacture of new goods, as the processes involved did not create identifiable new goods. Citing previous judicial decisions, including the Supreme Court's ruling in a similar case, the Tribunal concluded that the items, being part of immovable structures, do not meet the criteria for levy of Central Excise Duty. As a result, the appeals were allowed, and the demands for Central Excise Duty were set aside.
1997 (6) TMI 120 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI The Revenue's appeal against the duty amount confirmed by the Addl. Collector for removing angles and plates to R&D Centre was dismissed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal clarified that despite tariff changes, the process does not amount to manufacture based on previous judgments. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
1995 (4) TMI 305 - MADRAS HIGH COURT The court dismissed the writ petition, ruling it was not maintainable against the Governor due to immunity under Article 361 of the Constitution. The court found no merit in challenging the validity of the sanction order, allegations of mala fides, violation of fundamental rights, or public interest concerns. Emphasizing the opportunity to raise contentions during proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the court warned against contemptuous media practices during the case.
2016 (9) TMI 1662 - ITAT CHENNAI The Tribunal allowed the appeals in favor of the assessee in a case involving treatment of agricultural income, disallowance of municipal tax in rental income determination, assessment of accrued interest income from frozen bank deposits, and Wealth Tax assessment under section 25. The Tribunal directed the AO to recognize the claimed agricultural income, delete the addition of Rs. 21,66,959, dismiss the ground related to municipal tax disallowance, delete the accrued interest income of Rs. 36,10,000 from taxable income, and quash the section 25 order of the Wealth Tax Act.
2007 (11) TMI 68 - CESTAT, CHENNAI The appeal succeeded as the demands of interest and duty against the job worker were found unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The judgment emphasizes procedural compliance under relevant notifications, duty payment liability, and Revenue's limitations in demanding interest from parties.
2000 (10) TMI 249 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI The Tribunal upheld the duty demand on the appellants for misclassifying their products under a lower duty rate sub-heading instead of the correct higher duty rate sub-heading. The penalty imposed for violating a specific rule was set aside due to the appellants' admission of the shortage and corrective actions taken. The duty demand was confirmed, but the penalty was overturned in the final decision.
|
