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 15 of about 242 results (0.968 seconds)

Tirupur Container Terminals (P) Vs. Commissioner of Customs

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

Reported in : (2006)(110)ECC304

..... .a. lemuir container terminals pvt. ltd., tirupur as the custodian of goods meant for export and import would be required to comply with the provisions of section 45(2) of the act ibid as well as rules & regulations and instructions issued from time to time on the subject mentioned above.certain export goods, which were brought to the ..... issued by the collector of customs, wherein the procedure for handling of containerized export cargo in icd, tirupur was laid down. she also refers to section 141 of the customs act and submits that the appellants failed to submit themselves to the control of the proper officer of customs in charge of the icd, by removing the ..... this reason. in this context, however it is pertinent to note that the scn did not allege contravention of section 141. it alleged breach of section 51 of the act for the purpose of imposing penalty under section 117. but section 51 deals with clearance of goods for exportation and does not deal with handling of export goods by a .....

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 .....

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 .....

Shree Gujarati Samaj Bhavan Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in : (2006)(110)ECC483

..... that hon'ble supreme court in the case of tamil nadu kalyana mandap assn (supra) upheld that the constitutional validity of provisions of section 65 of finance act considering all the aspects.the issue before the hon'ble supreme court was in respect of the liability of service tax as 'mandap keeper' on kalyana mandapams ..... is also an admitted fact that they are providing hall and rooms for consideration for organizing the marriages. as per the provisions of section 65 of finance act 'mandap keeper' means a person who allows temporary occupation of a mandap for consideration for organizing any official, social or business function.7. we find ..... the scope of service tax.5. the ld. sdr appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the appellant is a society registered under m.p. society registration act and they are providing space i.e. one hall and attached rooms for consideration for organizing social functions, therefore, are covered under the definition of 'mandap keeper' .....

Roys Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

..... the learned advocates appeared for the appellants and shri r.k. singla, the learned jcdr, for the revenue. (i) though the goods are notified under section 4a of the central excise act 1944, the impugned goods are not meant for retail sale in the form in which they are cleared. to put it differently, the poly bags/pet jars ..... of rule 34(b) of swm(pc) rules, 1977. when there is no legal requirement for printing the mrp, assessment should be done only under section 4 of the central excise act and not under 4a as contended by the revenue. we do not agree with the stand of the appellant that the pet jars and poly bags ..... noted that "mrp has been declared on the individual cartons". telecom instruments are specified goods under section 4a of the central excise act also. section 4a specifically excludes the application of provision of section 4 of the central excise act to goods specified under section 4a. in these circumstances, we are of the view that telecom instruments in question fell for .....

Madras Cements Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

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

Reported in : (2006)(110)ECC611

..... his factory. the word 'factory' as defined in section 2(e) of the act, means any premises, including preeints thereof wherein or in any part of which excisable goods (other than salt) are manufactured or wherein or in any part ..... of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance for the production of final products. under rule 57q(1), the provisions of the said section apply to finished excisable goods described in the annexure for the purpose of allowing credit of specified duty-paid on the capital goods used by the manufacturer in ..... final products or as the case may be on such capital goods, if such capital goods were permitted to be cleared under rule 57s subject to the provisions of the section and the conditions and restrictions as specified by the central government. for the purpose of rule 57q, 'capital goods' was defined and the expression included 'machines, machinery, .....

India Glycols Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in : (2006)(110)ECC554

..... used as raw material for construction of plant cannot be said to be used as plant in the manufacture of goods, so as to qualify under section 8(3)(b) of the central sales tax act, 1956, relying upon paragraph 20 of the larger bench decision in the case of jawahar mills ltd. reported in 1999 (32) rlt 379 (cegat-l.b ..... in paragraph 29, the larger bench has categorically held that the expression employed in rule 57q is even wider than the expression contained in section 8(3)(b) of the central excise of the central sales tax act. following the ratio of the tribunal's order in the assessee's own case cited supra, i hold that the credit own case cited .....

Sh. A. Sivam Vs. Commissioner of Customs

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

Reported in : (2006)(110)ECC301

..... has also to be examined afresh, depending on the decision on the confiscability of the goods. since the appellant did not receive any notice contemplated under section 124 of the customs act, he has to be called upon to show cause as to why the goods should not be confiscated and penalty should not be imposed. ld.commissioner ..... shri m. manickkam (partner). no such notice was issued to shri a. sivan (appellant). ld. commissioner ordered absolute confiscation of the goods and imposed penalty under section 114 of the customs act on "m/s. j.j. trading corporation represented by its partner, shri m. manickkam." apparently, the firm was taken to be represented by shri m. manickkam ..... appellant). accordingly a show-cause notice was issued to m/s. j.j. trading corporation and shri m. manickkam for confiscation of the above goods under section 113 of the customs act and for imposition of penalty on the noticees. shri m.manickkam died on 13.7.2000. later on, an order was passed by the commissioner of .....

VipIn Enterprises and Shri Dinesh Vs. C.C.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

..... adjudication, the commissioner rejected the appellant's objection and ordered assessment at the proposed high price of 1500 us$ per m.t.he also confiscated the consignment under section 111(m) of the customs act, 1962 for the offence of mis-declaration of value of the consignment. penalties on the importing firm and also on its managing director have been imposed. the .....

Rks Agro Tech Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

..... .penalty of rs. 50,00,000/-was imposed on m/s. r.k.s. agro tech. ltd. under section 112(a) of customs act, 1962 and rule 26 of the central excise rules, 2002 read with rule 173q of the central excise rules, 1944. a penalty of rs. 10,00,000/- was ..... of the erstwhile central excise rules, 1944. the redemption fine of rs. 10,00,000/- was imposed. customs duty of rs. 3,95,43,239/- was demanded under section 72(1) of the customs act, 1962. central excise duty of rs. 12,89,102/- was also demanded under notification no. 1/95-c.e., dated 4-1-95. interest was also demanded ..... excise duty on the impugned goods. the adjudicating authority held that the imported goods are liable for confiscation under section 111(o) of the customs act, 1962. however, he imposed redemption fine of rs. 1,00,00,000/- under section 125 of the customs act. further the duty free capital goods procured indigenously were also confiscated under rule 25 of the central excise rules .....