Mumbai Court January 2007 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Litaka Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-02-2007
Reported in: (2007)(117)ECC201
1. In both these appeals, the Revenue holds that the price at which M/s Novartis India Ltd sold P & P medicaments to customers should be adopted as the assessable value for valuation of the medicaments in the hands of the assessee herein whom the department holds are the hired labours of Novartis/ working under loan licence basis for Novartis. In appeal No. 714/06, the Commissioner of Central Excise who has passed the impugned order has held that " what was agreed upon between the assessee and Novartis was not an agreement for sale of goods but a contract for work, there being no transfer of property within the true meaning of the term 'Sales'. A contract of sale has to be distinguished from a contract involving the exercise of skill of labours on some materials. In this view of the matter, Section 2(f) gets attracted and it has to be held that the assessee are only hired labours, irrespective of the ownership of the machinery and therefore, Novartis have to be construed as the 'm...
Ocean Diving Centre Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-02-2007
Reported in: (2007)(116)ECC202
1. The appellants herein have filed Bill of Entry dated 10.12.2003 for clearance of a second -hand Pontoon upgraded to Accommodation Barge from Singapore and claimed classification under Customs Tariff sub-heading 89.01 which covers Cruise Ships, Excursion boats, Ferry boats, Cargo ships, Barges and similar vessel for the transport of persons or goods, as Barges for the transport of persons and goods together with the benefit of Sr.No. 352 of the Table annexed to Notification No. 21/02-Cus dated 1.3.02. The claim was rejected by the authorities below who held that the vessel in question fell for classification under CT sub-heading 89.05 which covers " Light vessels, fire floats, dredgers, floating cranes and other vessels, the navigability of which is subsidiary to their main function,... on the ground that the navigability of the vessel is subsidiary or incidental to its main function of accommodating persons in a stationary position near oil rigs or flatform etc. Hence this appeal.2...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›