Excise Duty : In the case of M/s. Holostick India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise , Hon'ble Supreme Court held that While classifying a...
Excise Duty : Shabina Abraham & Ors. Vs. CCEC (Supreme Court of India) The legal heirs submitted that a reading of Sections 2(f), (3), Section 4...
Excise Duty : In the case of Commissioner Of Central Excise, Hyderabad Vs. M/S Sarvotham Care Limited, it was held that wherein the shampoo havi...
Custom Duty : In the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. M/s. Seiko Brushware India , it was held by Supreme Court that benefit of exemption Not...
Excise Duty : In the case of M/s. Rupa & Co. Limited Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise, it was held that what is contained in finished prod...
Custom Duty : In the case of M/S. Jaswal Neco Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Customs , it was held by Supreme Court that anti-dumping duty could not b...
The Hon’ble High Court found that the Tribunal in reaching the conclusion that the Appellant has not made out any prima facie case extensively dealt with the arguments as if it is called upon to decide the Appeal finally.
It has been repeatedly emphasized that judicial Tribunals and Courts of law have to follow the rule of consistency and certainty so also finality of judgments. There is a definite purpose being served because of all this and namely parties before the Court of law
The assessee is engaged in manufacture of plastic articles/components and parts by using injection moulding machines. In the present matter the moulds, used to manufacture, in this case cabinets for television sets the finished product
The Hon’ble Court is of the view that the present appeal does not involve an issue regarding the rate of duty in as much as even the assessee does not dispute the rate of duty i.e. payable for the services rendered.
The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of automobile parts and components. The assessee cleared waste and scrap and replacement of defective products without payment of duty. The period in question pertains to September, 1998.
The facts of the case are that assessee is a manufacturer of chocolates and coco products. During the course of the manufacturing final product certain floor spillage and sweeping arises which assessee is destroying.
The appellants manufacture excisable goods falling under Chapter 29 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On scrutiny of the records, departmental officers noticed that during the period 10/09/2004 to 28/02/2005 appellant had received some amount towards job-work charges and processing charges.
The assessee Integral Coach Factory (ICF) belonging to the Central Government is engaged in the business of manufacturing passenger coaches both self-propelled and non-propelled, steel freight containers and parts of passenger coaches for railways under Chapter 86 of CET 1985.
In the case of M/s.Karur K.C.P.Packagings Limited vs. The Commissioner of Customs, it was held by Madras High Court that that where any drawback payable to the claimant is not paid within a period of one month from the date of filing a claim for payment
The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of motorcycle and procures the service of advertising agency for the purpose of advertising their final product. They pay the value of the services to the advertising agency along with the amount of Service Tax leviable thereon.
