Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: explosives act 1884 section 4 definitions Sorted by: old Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat mumbai Year: 2006 Page 3 of about 58 results (0.524 seconds)

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. and

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2006)(107)ECC603

..... tax amounting to rs. 9,68,58,668/- in the first case and rs. 62,59,435/-in the second case besides proposing penalties under section 76, 77, 78, 79 ana 81 of chapter v of finance act, 1994. in both the cases the show cause notices were confirmed in which service tax amounting to rs. 9,68,57,665/- in the ..... on tax on sale or purchase of goods. the amendment has introduced the context of "deemed sales". it does not alter the meaning of sale in the sale of goods act or other enactment, including the law on service tax. the supreme court has in the case of state of maharashtra v. laljit rajshi shah hold that legal fiction are created .....

Ajay Industrial Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

..... 10.12.1998 to 31.12.1999 after which it expired without any saving clause. the notifications in question are notification imposing a prohibition, in terms of section 5 of the ftdr act, 1992.notification dated 1.11.1999 did not have any saving clause of its own.20. notification dated 1.11.99 being a subordinate legislation, therefore, ..... value in the bill of entry would not be covered by the expression "goods which do not correspond to material particulars with the entry made under this act" employed in unamended section 111(m) as it stood pre 1973, incorrect mention of particulars relating to the date of bill of lading would also not be covered by the expression ..... held by the constitution bench of the supreme court in kohlapur cane sugar co. ltd. v. union of india wherein the court held that section 6 of the general clauses act only applies to a central act and do not apply to rules or notification.21. in addition, the notification dated 10th december, 1998, as amended by notification dated 1 .....

Kasat Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2006)(105)ECC409

..... connection it has been held by the board that even if the goods are sold at prices less that the manufacturing cost, the sale prices will constitute under section 4 of the central excise act, 1944 as held by the supreme court in the case of cce, new delhi v. guru nanak refrigeration corporation 2005 (153) 249 (sc) following the ..... to rs 1,56,92,883.63 for the period march 1980 to february 1985. this notice dated 15.8.1995 invoked the extended period under the proviso to section 11a(1) of the central excise rules and also proposed to imposed penalty on the appellants.2.4 this case was decided by the collector of central excise & ..... in the files referred to by the collector relating to the correspondence between the appellants and the buyers they were referring to the product as 'copper complx'. these two acts namely the omission and commission would prove that the appellants have deliberately omitted to furnish the particular of raw material used i.e. 'cupric chloride', in order to conceal .....

Noble Asset Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2006)(112)ECC457

..... preventive) lacked jurisdiction as the commissioner (prev) did not have territorial jurisdiction over the exclusive economic zone of india. as per notification issued under section 4 of the customs act, the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioner (prev) is confined to districts of mumbai, thane and raigad. the exclusive economic zone of india does ..... or issued a notice for demanding duty on the said rig. the territorial jurisdictions of different officers of customs are prescribed by notification issued under section 4 of the customs act, 1962. the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioner of customs (preventive) is confined to the districts of mumbai, thane and raigad. only the ..... for the rig by treating the same as a vessel. this port clearance permit signed by an assistant collector of customs in terms of section 42of the customs act 1962 is issued after complying with stringent provisions there under. the proper officer who issued the port clearance is required to verify the due .....

Al-falah (Exports) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

..... , ahmedabad 2005 (102) ecc 406 (tri-mum.)jasch indus v. cce, delhi this plea will not induce us to bring out an automatic penalty liability under section 114a of customs act, 1962, when short payments of duty have been complied even before the issue of a notice & determination. the plea that penalty is required and prescribed by legislature ..... that the findings, in the case of jindal vijaynagar steel 2004 (177) e.l.t. 937, to be applicable only as regards the penalty liabilities, under section 114a of customs act, 1962 along with interest liability consequent thereto, to be covered by the reasoning as in machino montell case.1.4 the ld. dr's contention was that ..... 11.2001 of commissioner, mangalore to the following effect. the importers/exporters/chas/steamer agents are hereby informed that in section 28 of the customs act, 1962, a new sub-section (2)2b has been inserted by section 103 of the finance act, 2001 (w.e.f. 11.5.2001) 1. following this amendment, where any duty has not been levied .....

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 .....

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 .....

Mustan Taherbhai Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2006)(108)ECC561

..... 2005 (181) elt 14. the hon'ble high court held that none of the questions framed by the revenue in the statutory appeal filed under the provisions of section 30 of the customs act 1962, including the question as to whether the relevant date on which the vessel is broken up would be the date on which it is taken for breaking ..... the ld sdr holding that the date of determination of rate of duty is the date of presentation of bill of entry which is to be presented under section 46(1) of the customs act when the vessel itself being goods, was imported and that rate of duty is the rate as applicable on actual arrival of goods, to support his ..... become the owners of the vessel and held themselves out to be the importer and therefore the appellants were the importers as per the definition of "importer" under section 2(26) of the customs act 1962. the contention of the appellants that the sci was the owner of the vessel intended for breaking-up was rejected by the commissioner (appeals) on the .....

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Kinetic Engineering Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

..... substantial prejudice to public interest but is offensive to several well established principles of law. it also leads to grave public mischief. section 72 of the contract act, or for that matter section 17(1)(c) of the limitation act, 1963, has no application to such a claim for refund.3. since in this matter no evidence has been produced of any ..... context of old tariff item, and not applicable to c.ex.tariff 1985 was not acceptable. (iii) there is no material change in the definition of manufacture as container in section 2(f) of the ct, prior to 1.3.86. (iv) "ash residue" covered under csh 2620 of ceta 85 is not per se sufficient for determining whether ..... , citation relied upon by the assessee applicable to their case, and accordingly held that assessee are entitled for refund and that assessee's case is covered under the limitation act, and 3 years time limit for filing refund is rightly applicable to them.2. heard the ld.sdr. the respondent were absent. the issue of refund eligibility on .....

S.D. Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

..... seen from the facts and circumstances, the subject matter of the appeal, did not fall within the scope of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 35b of the central excise act, 1944. therefore, the aforesaid decisions of this tribunal do not stand for consideration. the preliminary objection is answered accordingly.33. there was nothing ..... the tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with even the limited question of limitation relating to rebate of duty on export as per proviso to section 35b of the central excise act, 1944, when the tribunal cannot take up the main substantive issue of rebate claim on export, it can not take up the procedural ..... existed in the seized records thereby requiring the appellant to compare the incomparables. the request of the appellant made in the statement recorded under section 14 of the central excise act, 1944 to provide complete records seized from the premises for giving correct position in regard to seized stocks, detailing the complete of the receipt .....