9911796707
| TMI General Search |
|
Advanced Search Options
Showing 61 to 80 of 88 Records Search Text: Tansi |
| Search Results |
| Case-Laws (87) Circulars (1) |
|
2023 (11) TMI 1309 - SC Order The SC allowed the appeal in RSA No.196/2022, overturning the HC's dismissal on merits. The case is remanded to the HC for reconsideration on its merits. The appeal was allowed and disposed of without any costs.
2019 (1) TMI 1030 - CESTAT MUMBAI The Tribunal dismissed Revenue's appeals against dropping recovery proceedings for duty, affirming the entitlement of the government agency to exemption under specific notifications for supplies. Emphasizing that each manufacturing establishment could independently claim exemption, the Tribunal upheld the respondent's position on clubbing clearances for duty calculation. Relying on legislative intent and relevant case law, the Tribunal concluded that the respondent's eligibility for exemption was valid, rejecting Revenue's arguments. The decision was rendered on 18/01/2019.
2008 (2) TMI 56 - HIGH COURT MADRAS The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision requiring a trust to pre-deposit service tax for educational services under a Distance Education Programme. The Court found no undue hardship demonstrated by the trust and dismissed their claim, emphasizing the Tribunal's consideration of lack of prima facie case and financial position. The Court directed the Tribunal to expedite the appeal's resolution within two months, recognizing the delay caused by interim orders. Despite dismissing the writ petition, the Court stressed the importance of timely appeal disposal.
2004 (6) TMI 220 - CESTAT, MUMBAI The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that the demands for duty short paid were not sustainable. The appellant had followed instructions received, and the orders were deemed bad in law. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments, ultimately concluding that the demands were invalid based on settled legal principles and previous court decisions.
2002 (10) TMI 389 - CEGAT, CHENNAI The tribunal classified the imported steel nose bars as parts of textile machinery, granting the importer's appeal and rejecting the Revenue's appeals. The decision emphasized the item's design and function within textile machinery, supported by technical documentation and expert opinions, overturning the Commissioner's classification of the item as raw material. The tribunal highlighted the inconsistency in the Commissioner's decisions and applied interpretative Rule 2(a) to determine the item's eligibility for customs benefits under the relevant notification.
1999 (10) TMI 214 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI The Tribunal rejected all appeals filed by the Revenue, ruling that Green sand, Core sand Resin Bonded core, and Sodium Silicate Bonded coats are not excisable goods subject to duty under the Central Excise Act. The decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting marketability, the unique nature of the products compared to resin coated sand, and precedent regarding duty exemption for resin coated sand used captively in manufacturing sand moulds. The Tribunal upheld the Collector's findings, emphasizing the short lifespan of the products and the insufficiency of evidence to establish marketability.
1999 (8) TMI 637 - CEGAT, CHENNAI The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Chennai, in a case concerning the classification of goods under Central Excise Rules, ruled in favor of the appellants. The Tribunal emphasized the need to consider the actual condition of the goods when determining taxability, remanding the matter for further examination by the original authority. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of assessing whether the items in question truly qualified as furniture, directing a detailed review based on tariff and explanatory notes. The Tribunal also instructed a reevaluation of the time-barred demands and suppression of facts, ultimately allowing the appeal and setting aside the previous order for fresh consideration.
1997 (5) TMI 211 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, M/s. Orissa Construction Corpn. Ltd., holding that the fabrication of steel items for erecting structurals within another company's premises did not constitute manufacturing excisable goods. The fabricated items were deemed part of immovable structurals specific to the client's requirements, lacking independent marketable identity. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of marketability for general customers and considered the fabricated items as intermediate processes, ultimately setting aside the duty demand and allowing the appeal.
2008 (6) TMI 584 - CESTAT BANGALORE The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision that the process undertaken by the assessee did not amount to manufacturing under the excise law. The Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's appeals and rejected them based on the legal analysis and precedents cited in the judgment.
2008 (4) TMI 105 - CESTAT Bangalore The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, ruling that the process undertaken by the Respondents, involving drilling holes and cutting materials, did not amount to manufacturing. The items retained their original form and purpose after processing, with no new manufacturing process involved. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeals, emphasizing that the process did not result in the creation of new, distinct products.
1999 (7) TMI 421 - CEGAT, CHENNAI The Tribunal held that most items processed in the workshop were not excisable goods, except for M.S. Racks. The appeals were allowed, except for M.S. Racks, on which duty was to be paid.
1999 (3) TMI 578 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI The appeal related to the fabrication of iron and steel rocks was withdrawn by the appellant's advocate, leading to its dismissal. The classification of various items under Central Excise law was analyzed, with the Tribunal finding that the processes involved did not result in the creation of new commodities. The naming of products was deemed for identification purposes only. Relying on a Circular by the CBE & C, it was established that the process must lead to a new market-recognized commodity to constitute manufacturing. The decision in Appeal E/3168/92 regarding Clamps was applied to E/3169/92, resulting in the setting aside of the impugned order and granting relief to the appellant in both appeals.
1998 (12) TMI 145 - CEGAT, MADRAS The Tribunal overturned the Order-in-Appeal, ruling that activities like drilling, punching holes, painting, and welding on duty-paid raw materials did not amount to manufacturing. Citing precedents and established legal principles, the Tribunal concluded that these processes did not create new goods, aligning with previous Tribunal judgments. As a result, the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, setting aside the initial decision that classified the activities as manufacturing under Chapter 7326.90.
1998 (7) TMI 319 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI The tribunal held that no additional duty was payable on the manufactured items as they fell under the definition of cotton fabrics, for which duty was already paid on the raw materials. The penalty imposed on the appellants was reduced as excessive. The impugned order was modified, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.
2019 (3) TMI 515 - CESTAT CHENNAI The Tribunal upheld the Revenue's demand for duty recovery, citing the appellant's admission of balance duty payment as proof of suppression of facts. The appellant's challenges to the invocation of the extended recovery period were dismissed, with the Tribunal emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting their claims and the discrepancy in closing stock values. The appeal was rejected due to the appellant's failure to substantiate their arguments and the acknowledgment of non-payment of duty, leading to the liability for duty recovery.
1998 (7) TMI 391 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and providing consequential reliefs. It held that rubber waste and scrap were excisable under sub-heading 4004.00, suggested further verification for Aluminium Lasts, exempted Paper Patterns from excise duty, found the show cause notices time-barred, and set aside the penalty due to lack of fraudulent intent and previous understanding with authorities.
2023 (8) TMI 1136 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders in three appeals concerning duty penalty and interest imposed by the Commissioner for non-payment of duty on Brass Scrap removal to a job worker. The appellant's argument, based on the Wyeth Laboratories Ltd. decision, that Brass Scrap is recyclable material and not subject to duty for job work, was accepted. Citing precedents like Binani Zinc Ltd. and Jain Metal Components Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized adherence to the majority view of Wyeth Laboratories Ltd., ruling in favor of the appellant and granting consequential relief in accordance with the law.
2022 (8) TMI 986 - MADRAS HIGH COURT The court set aside the impugned order due to lack of detailed reasoning and consideration of relevant materials. The case was remitted back to the Commissioner for fresh consideration, with directions to pass an appropriate order after allowing the petitioner to present objections. The Commissioner was instructed to complete this process within three months. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
1997 (7) TMI 395 - CEGAT, CHENNAI The Tribunal classified the Electro Cardiograph (ECG) recording paper under Tariff Heading 4823.19, considering its specific use and marketability. The decision was based on the interpretation of manufacturing processes, previous Tariff Advice, and relevant case laws. Post-1-3-1994, duty liability was determined under 4823.19, with directions for re-computation of duty and consideration of Modvat credit. The appeals were disposed of in favor of the appellants, emphasizing the importance of the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) in tariff interpretation.
2017 (2) TMI 672 - CESTAT NEW DELHI The Tribunal held that the appellant's processes, including cutting, drilling, punching, bending, and welding, did not amount to manufacture, as they did not result in the creation of new identifiable products known to the market. The final products were classified under the Central Excise Tariff but were deemed not excisable. The decision was based on the Supreme Court's rulings affirming similar cases. The appeal was allowed, granting relief to the appellant from Central Excise duty liability.
|
