Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: explosives act 1884 section 4 definitions Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat Year: 2006 Page 1 of about 242 results (0.234 seconds)

Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. (Appeals)

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

Reported in : (2006)(108)ECC128

..... ) is also not correct in rejecting the appeal holding that the communication of the dy. commissioner is not an appealable order. as held in the case of indian explosive limited (supra), communication of the dy. commissioner has to be treated as a decision or an order passed by the adjudicating, authority and the same is appeable. the ..... order by the dy.commissioner and hence, the appeal filed before the commissioner is entertainable. the learned counsel further submits that the tribunal in the case of indian explosives limited reported in 1991 (56) e.l.t. 583 in an identical situation has considered conveying a decision against a letter to be a decision or order ..... passed by the adjudicating authority and to be appeable under section 35 of the central excise act. the learned counsel submits that the matter has to go back to the original authority with a direction to take their letter dated 9-1 .....

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

..... not sustainable. further the learned advocate pointed out that as per para 141 of the explosives act, 1884, there are certain requirements as under : 141. restrictions on sale of explosives - (1) no person shall sell any explosive to any person who is not authorized to possess such explosives under these rules. (2) no person shall sell, deliver or cause to be delivered ..... petrochemicals ltd v. commissioner of c. ex., chennai 2004 (167) elt 434 (tri. - chennai) wherein it has been held that removal of goods to r & d section for testing which is situated within factory compound and also marked in ground plan - nod duty is demandable.neelkamal plastics ltd. v. cce, noida wherein it has been held ..... as drugs could not be sold in market without compliance with rules ibid, the samples were not marketable and they were not liable to duty - sections 2 (f) and 3 of central excise act, 1944.j.k. industries ltd. v. cce, jaipur 2003 (156) elt 437 (tri del) wherein it has been held that samples of tyred .....

Shri Vishan Shamlal Milwani and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2006)(109)ECC113

..... the goods. they did not have the capacity to manufacture the entire goods stated to have been clandestinely removed that their manufacture of fireworks is governed under the explosive act and so the production cannot be concealed and that they cannot work during night as electricity is not used in the premises as the heat generated by electricity can ..... possible for them to remove calendestinely finished goods valued at rs. 1.36 crores from the factory premises.10. as regards penalty it was submitted that penalty under section 11ac is not mandatory as has been held in a number of decisions and since no clandestine clearances have been effected the penalty is not imposable at all.11 ..... as in case of clandestine removal all facts cannot be similar and each case has to be judged on its own merits.15. as regards the mandatory penalty under section 11ac, we hold that the penalty is the maximum penalty provided and not equivalent penalty and we are inclined to reduce this penalty to rs. 5 lakhs only .....

Keltch Energies Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

..... which were within time period, impugned order holding that no need to resort to provisional assessment as revenue also claimed higher duty when price increased, upheld - section 11b of central excise act, 1944 (para 4).as rightly contended by the learned advocate the facts of mrf case relied on by the commissioner (a) are distinguishable. hence, following ..... considered as reduction in price which the commissioner. (b) jaiswal equipments and holdings pvt ltd. v. cce, raipur 2005 (185) e.l.t. 306.cce, nagpur v. orient explosives pvt. ltd. and ors. - vide final order no. a/1085-1088/wzb/2005.utkal polyweave indus. pvt. ltd. v. cce, bhubaneswar 2001 (136) e.l.t. 818 ..... appeal against order-in-appeal no. 684/2001-c.e., dated 15-11-2002 passed by the commissioner of central excise (appeals), bangalore.2. the appellants manufacture explosives, an excisable commodity. they supply the product to m/s. coal india ltd. and other public sector undertakings. the prices are fixed on the basis of tender and .....

Kesari Steels Ltd., Kotdwar Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2006)(113)ECC327

..... material is found in the consignment. this is not in dispute. the commissioner of customs found that the goods are liable for confiscation under section 111(d) of customs act, 1962 on the ground that the appellants have not produced pre-shipment certificate. therefore, the commissioner of customs, kandla in all the cases ..... and the exporter stipulating that the consignment does not contain any type of arms, ammunition, mines, shells, cartridges, radio active contaminated, or any other explosive material in any form either used or otherwise.4. in the present cases, importer did not furnish sale contract document, but however furnished pre-shipment certificate ..... 28 to the effect that: a) the consignment does not contain any type of arms, ammunition, mines, shells, cartridges, radio active contaminated or any other explosive material in any form either used or otherwise. waste/scrap/seconds/defective as per the internationally accepted parameters for such a classification. c) copy of the .....

Arti Impex Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

..... the consignment does not contain any type of arms, ammunition, cartridges, shells, mines, radio active contaminated or any other explosive material. in the absence of such certificate the consignment was seized and confiscated under provisions of section 111(d) of the customs act, 1962 with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of rs. 1,75,000/-. a penalty of .....

Clariant (India) Ltd. Vs. Ccex

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

..... law has undergone a change with effect from 1.7.2000 requiring excise valuation to be done according to transaction value of the goods under assessment. section 4(1) of the central excise act, 1944 (cea) stipulates transaction value to be adopted in a case where goods are sold for delivery at the time and place of removal. in ..... from the factory, but are merely transferred to the depot. we are concerned here with those goods which are sold from the depot after repacking into smaller packages. under section 4(3)(c)(iii) "place of removal" is defined to mean a depot from where excisable goods are sold after clearance from the factory. since depot is a ..... original no. 69/th-iii/rrb/2001-02 by following the judgment of savita chemicals. (v) the commissioner of central excise, thane-i in exercise of power under section 35e directed the deputy commissioner to make an application to commissioner of central excise (a) on the grounds, that the place of removal includes depot from where goods are .....

Margra Industries Ltd. and Mohan Vs. C.C. and Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

..... that it had sought to effect service and had effected service in any of the modes prescribed under clause (b) and (c) of sub- section (1) of section 37c of the act. in the circumstances, the averment made on oath by the petitioner that a copy of the order was not served on the petitioner, remains unrebutted. ..... chem. & pharmaceuticals ltd. v. commr. of central excise, chennai ;reliance telecom ltd. v. commissioner of customs, new delhi ; 31. lalchand bhimraj v. commissioner of customs, chennai ;rajasthan explosives and chemicals v. cce, jaipur-1 ;malabar enterprises v. cc, cochin 35. rajshree dyeing & printing mills pvt. ltd. v. uoi ;mercury industries v. cce, chennai 2005 (191) elt ..... ground that there was delay in filing the appeal.3. the learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the statutory provisions as envisaged in section 153 of the customs act, 1962 is very clear in as much as that the order has to be physically served upon the appellant. it is his submission that .....

Siticable Network P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2006)(112)ECC91

..... concern engaged in providing any service connected with the making, preparation, display or exhibition of advertisement and included an "advertising consultant". also erstwhile section 65(48)(e) of finance act, 1994 (now section 65(90)(e)] defined "taxable service" to mean any service provided to a client by an advertising agency in relation to advertisements in ..... amount reflected in the balance sheets relates to service provided in the capacity of an advertising agency to a client, as defined in erstwhile section 65(2) now section 65(3) of the finance act, 1944. the show cause notice was adjudicated by the deputy commissioner, who, after due consideration, held hat the said amounts shown ..... of tribunals decision in the case of m/s shri. chakra tyres reported in 1999(108) e.lt. 361 does not merit consideration as section 4 the central excise act, 1944 has not been made applicable to like matters in service tax. the appellants have also argued on the point of application of extended period .....

Gokak Mills Limited Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

Reported in : (2007)(115)ECC309

..... of procurement on duty-free material" since that material was used to generate power by the eou and such goods were exempted under section 25 of the customs act and section 5a of the central excise act. what was exempted was "duty" and what was collected when power was transferred from the eou was such foregone duty on inputs ..... appellants and shri k. sambi reddy, the learned jdr, for the revenue. (i) the appellant relies on the definition of the expression "duty" in section 2a of the act, which has been totally ignored by the learned respondent, and the definition is inclusive and has a wide connotation. what has been paid in an amount equal ..... final product shall be allowed to take credit of (i) duty of excise specified in first schedule of central excise tariff act; (ii) duty of excise specified in second schedule of central excise tariff act. the learned commissioner would not have any hesitation in allowing the credit had the assessee directly purchased raw materials and consumables for .....