Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: explosives act 1884 section 4 definitions Sorted by: old Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat Year: 2006 Page 8 of about 242 results (0.230 seconds)

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 .....

R.K. Agarwal Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

Reported in : (2007)8STR335

..... 00,000/- (one lakh only) on the managing director under rule 209a of central excise rules, 1944. the company preferred an appeal to the commissioner (appeals) under section 35. the current appellant before me did not prefer any appeal before the commissioner (appeals).3. an argument was taken before the commissioner (appeals) that the appeal ..... be identified with the company but should be considered as an individual.5. further, the provisions of section 35(1) provides for appeal to be filed by person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under central excise act, 1944 by the central excise officer. the appellant before me was definitely an aggrieved person by ..... the order passed by the adjudicating authority. he preferred not to file an appeal under section 35 to the first appellate authority. in the absence of any .....

A.P. Co-operative Oilseeds Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

Reported in : (2006)(104)ECC216

..... ,43,630/- for the period from 24-3-2003 to 30-3-2003. further, he imposed a penalty of rs. 2 lakhs under rule 25 of ce rules. interest under section 11ab was also imposed. the appellants strongly challenge the findings of the adjudicating authority.3. shri g. prabhakara sastry, the learned advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants and shri ..... the case, we do not find any reason for imposing penalty under rule 25 as, the dispute arises on account of interpretation of the term 'brand name'. as the appellants acted under bona fide belief, we set aside the penalty. the appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

Indian Graphite Manufacturers Vs. Ministry of Finance, Designated

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

..... ex-factory price where adjustment has been given in value due to inferior quality.9. we find that it is also challenged that under section 9a(5) of the customs tariff act, the designated authority can recommend cessation or continuation of the anti dumping duty which was originally imposed. he cannot recommend change in the ..... different from material injury test, is not correct. the d.a.has taken into consideration the tests which are required to be applied under section 9a(5) of the customs tariff act. the designated authority has interpreted various factors meaningfully and their effect on likely injury in future. thus, the designated authority has taken into ..... therefore, the designated authority was correct in recommending cessation of duty for graphite (uhp).6. we have considered the submissions of all sides. under section 9a(5) of the customs tariff act, 1975, the anti-dumping duty imposed shall, unless revoked earlier, cease to have effect on the expiry of five years from the date of .....

Andhra Petrochemical Ltd., Sasol Vs. Designated Authority and

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

..... margin of dumping in relation to such article are required to be determined in the manner provided by the rules, as laid down in sub-section (6) of section 9a(1) of the act. rule 4(1)(b) enjoins a duty on the designated authority to identify "article" liable for anti-dumping duty. public notice notifying the ..... such investigation. it was further contended that imposition of anti-dumping duty or initiation in respect of products not imported into india was violative of section 9a(1) of the act. it was contended that unless article under investigation was identified, the question of determination of like articles did not arise and the designated authority had ..... final findings and the notification issued on the basis thereof by the central government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) read with sub-section (5) of section 9a of the customs tariff act, and rules 18 and 20 of the customs tariff (identification, assessment and collection of anti-dumping duty on dumped articles .....

Salona CotspIn Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu

..... which is leviable on such goods at the rate applicable to such goods on the date of such removal and on the value determined for such goods under section 4 or section 4a of the act, as they case may be and such removal shall be made under the cover of an invoice referred to in rule 7.when the remaining items of ..... demand of rs. 48,075/- being differential duty payable on capital goods removed by the appellants, imposition of penalty of rs. 48,075/- and interest due under section 11ab of the central excise act, 1944. the facts of the case are that the appellants had removed different items of used textile machinery on 11.2.2002 and 2.5.2003. on the .....

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 .....

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 .....

Shri Kamlakant Mishra Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

..... after illegal possession. the only person who could have thrown any light on the presence of confiscated bearing was the driver, who is not traceable.5.2 section 115(2) of customs act, 1962, which deals with confiscation of the conveyance reads as under: (2) any conveyance or animal used as a means of transport in the smuggling ..... not have knowledge of the presence of the bearings having foreign markings, the confiscation of the truck under section 115(2) of the customs act, 1962, is correct.6. as regards the penalty on the appellant under section 112(b) of the customs act, 1962, the appellant has purchased the truck to earn livelihood, by transporting the goods for a charge ..... not have had any knowledge of the illicit goods being transported in truck.7. in view of the above findings, the confiscation of the truck under section 115(2) of the customs act is upheld and penalty on the appellant under section 112(b) of customs act is set aside. the appeal is allowed partly in the above terms.