Advanced Search Results
M/S. Binny Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Jan-06-2011
Excise
Shri R. Raghavan, Advocate, for the Appellants. Ms. Indira Sisupal, JDR for the Respondent.
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. 2. Shri R. Raghavan, learned counsel states that the impugned goods are nothing but boilers cleared in CDK/SKD condition. He contends that these are required to be assessed as...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskM/S. Carborandum Universal Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ch ...
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Dec-02-2009
Service Tax
Shri R. Raghavan and M. Kannan, Counsel, for the Appellants. Shri V.V. Hariharan, Jt. CDR for the Respondent.
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy These two appeals relate to two different periods October 1998 to March 2000 and April 2000 to September 2001. The related show-cause notices have been issued on 9.5.2001 and 28.1.2002. The issue...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskCommissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Brakes India Ltd. and Anot ...
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Oct-27-2009
Excise
Shri R.Raghavan, Advocate. Shri C.Rangaraju, SDR.
Per Dr.Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. The appellant-assessee as well as the department have come up in appeal against the very same impugned order. 2. Shri R.Raghavan, ld. advocate appearing for the appellant-assessee states that the...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask18-section briefs on any result in this list
Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd.
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Sep-24-2009
Service Tax
Shri V.V. Hariharan, JCDR, for the appellant. Shri R. Raghavan, Adv., for the respondent.
Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Heard both sides. We find that the lower appellate authority has allowed modvat credit on capital goods in respect of computers. The department is in appeal against the impugned order. Shri R....
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskM/S. Ashok Leyland Vs. Cce, Chennai
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Feb-03-2010
Service Tax
Shri R. Raghavan, Adv., for the appellant. Shri T.H. Rao, SDR, for the respondent.
Heard both sides. This case falls within the jurisdiction of Single Member. As such, the same is taken up for hearing and disposal by me with the consent of both sides even though the case was...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Askinys Medical Research Society Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Nov-04-2009
Service Tax
Shri R.Raghavan, Advocate. Shri C.Dhanasekaran, SDR
Per Dr.Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. Shri R.Raghavan, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants states that three equipments were imported through Bangalore Customs and one through Chennai Customs, all of which were covered under the same...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskCommissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Carborandum Universal Ltd.
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Mar-28-2000
Service Tax
(2001)(130)ELT752Tri(Chennai)
1. This Revenue appeal is against the order in appeal No. 3/98, dated 2-2-1998 wherein certain reliefs were granted upsetting the order in original No. 9/AC-V/96, dated 12-2-1996 passed by the Assistant Commissioner who had confirmed...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskCommissioner of Central Excise Vs. Fluid therm Technology P. Ltd. and
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Sep-05-2002
MRTP
(2003)(85)ECC279
1. In all these 3 appeals common question of law and fact arises and hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law.2. The question that arises for consideration is about the classification of...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskCommissioner of Central Excise Vs. Welmech Engineering (P) Ltd.
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Oct-10-2002
MRTP
(2003)(85)ECC394
1. In both these Revenue appeals common question of law and facts are involved. Hence, they are taken up together for disposal as per law.2. The question that arises for consideration in these appeals is as...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskAshok Leyland Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Jul-20-1983
Excise
(1983)LC2147DTri(Chennai)
1. Appeal under Section 35-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 praying that in the circumstances stated therein, the Tribunal will be pleased to set aside the order No. 274 of 1982 dated 31-8-1982...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskAI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »