Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: explosives act 1884 section 4 definitions Sorted by: recent Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat Year: 2006 Page 1 of about 242 results (0.173 seconds)

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 .....

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 .....

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 .....

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 .....

T.N. State Trans. Corpn. Vs. C.C.E.

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

Reported in : (2007)6STR322

..... the appellants to suit the requirement of staff of bhel. the tour operator service has been re-defined effective from 10- 9-2004 in terms of section 65(115) of the finance act. as per the revised definition "tour operator means any person engaged in the business of planning, scheduling, organizing or arranging tours (which may include ..... similar services) by any mode of transport and includes any person engaged in the business of operating tourist vehicle covered by a permit granted under the motor vehicles act 1988 (59 of 1988) or the rules made thereunder". the commissioner found that from 10-9-2004 onwards any person engaged in the business of planning, scheduling ..... and penalty @ rs. 100 per day for the delay in payment of the tax due under section 76. the order also had demanded interest at the appropriate rate under section 75 of the finance act 1994. in the impugned order the commissioner (appeals), trichy has affirmed the demand of tax and the penalties imposed in the original order .....

Stumpp, Scheule and Somappa Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

Reported in : (2007)(212)ELT118Tri(Bang.)

..... , at the time nearest to the time of removal of goods under assessment. therefore, he has confirmed the differential duty and imposed penalty of rs. 10 lakhs under section 11ac of the ce act.2. the appellants' contention is that what was cleared by them were semi-finished goods to their own units. the findings rendered by the commissioner in the impugned ..... the sister unit many other processes are undertaken and a complete product emerges. an incomplete product emerges as a complete product in the sister unit. the appellants have quoted relevant section note, wherein it is stated that the processes by which an incomplete item becomes a fully manufactured item amounts to process of manufacture. hence, here is a case where excisable .....

Seagram India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus., Icd

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

..... price during the entire period 1995-01 should have been taken into account, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the scheme of the provisions of section 14 of the act and rule 6 of the rules clearly contemplated taking into consideration of the transaction value of "similar goods" sold for export to india and imported at or ..... i) ltd. v. commissioner of c. ex., chennai-i 11. the requirement of making deposit as a condition of hearing of the appeal is incorporated in section 129e of the said act and it is only when there is undue hardship that the tribunal will have the discretion to waive the requirement wholly or partially, depending upon the facts and ..... view of these directions. it was further contended that the appellant was required to make the deposit of the duty amount in view of the provisions of section 129e of the act since no undue hardship was pleaded, and the financial condition of the appellant was admittedly sound enough to pay up the amount. he submitted that in super .....

B.V. Jewels and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2007)(116)ECC264

..... to establish their licit import, we uphold their confiscation with an option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of rs. 43 lakhs under section 125 of the customs act as held by the commissioner.28. similar is the situation in respect of unaccounted diamonds which have been exported without proof of its licit import as shown ..... section 112(a) and section 114(i) is unwarranted. accordingly we set aside the same.30. as regards imposition of penalty of rs. 2 ..... imposition of penalty of rs. 5 crores on m/s. b.v.jewels under section 112(a) and section 114(i) of the customs act, 1962 is concerned, we find that a penalty of around rs. 12 crores has already been imposed under section 114a of the customs act, and therefore we feel that further imposition of penalty of rs. 5 crore under .....