Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents amendment act 2002 section 32 amendment of section 67 Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat delhi Year: 2005 Page 1 of about 3 results (0.155 seconds)

WavIn India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in : (2005)(186)ELT90TriDel

..... 442 (cegat-lb)] wherein it has been held that the power of rectification of mistake under section 129b of the act is a limited power and this power is restricted to rectification of mistakes apparent from the record calling for amendment of the order. it has been held by the supreme court in the case of s. balram, income-tax ..... of the duty which had been paid by them in excess before the abatement was allowed; that in view of this, the provisions of section 27 of the customs act regarding unjust enrichment are applicable.4. we have considered the submissions of both the sides. the applicants, through the present application, are challenging the findings given by us ..... officer company v. volkart brothers, air 1971 sc 2204 that a mistake apparent on record must be an obvious and patent mistake not something which can be established by a .....

Majestic Auto Ltd. and Shri Pankaj Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

..... is based upon the presumption that the dealers were the agents of mal and hence dealers' premises was "place of removal" under sec.4 of the central excise act as amended from 28.9.1996, while the factual position is that the title to goods stood transferred from mal to dealers at the factory gate and therefore, the dealers premises ..... in the present case. therefore, the finding of non existence of seller buyer relationship between mal and its dealers on the basis of incorrect interpretation of loi is patently wrong.17. the commissioner has compared return of stocks lying unsold in swil case with the rebate/discount in price shared between mal and its dealers to conclude that ..... see page 69 of vol.3 part i) mal had cited the tribunal decision in associated strips and also the decision of frexton cables (india) v. cce, delhi (2002(142) elt 694) to support their contention that the goods were sold by them to dealers at the factory gate, the transfer of possession of goods was effected at the .....

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Cce [Alongwith Appeal No.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in : (2005)(190)ELT301TriDel

..... ltd. v. collector of central excise, ahmedabad , was cited to point out that it was held in paragraph 10 of the judgment that when rules were amended, a fiction was created that any article produced or manufactured, if captively consumed was statutorily presumed to satisfy the test of marketability and this presumption could be rebutted ..... amount to manufacture. it was submitted that the decisions taking a contrary view in structurals and machineries bokara pvt. ltd. v. cce, patnaarti steels v. cce reported in 2002 (144) elt 360 and richardson & cruddas (1972) ltd v. cce reported in 1988 (38) elt 176 (3 judges) were no longer binding because the supreme court ..... ground before erecting the structures at the site. it was submitted that having regard to the definition of "factory" in section 2(e) of the central excise act, "factory" means any premises including the precincts thereof, wherein or in any part of which, the excisable goods are manufacture or any manufacturing process connected with .....

Urals Heavy Machine Building Vs. Designated Authority/Ministry

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in : (2005)(187)ELT194TriDel

..... nt) dated 31.5.2001.the said note listing non-market economy countries was removed when the above paragraph was substituted by the amending notification no.1/01-cus.(nt) dated 4.1.2002, and in stead, a presumption was raised as per sub-paragraph(2) of paragraph 8, that any country that has been determined ..... , 2001, made by the central government under section 9a(2)(6) and 9b of the customs tariff act, 1975. this paragraph 8 was later substituted by the amendment rule, 2002, made on 4.1.2002.paragraphs 7 and 8 of annexure-i which are relevant for our consideration, as they stood during the period in question, read as ..... after machine it is induction hardened, tempered, subjected to final machining before despatch to customer.3.1 the designated authority issued preliminary findings dated 11.12.2002 recommending imposition of anti-dumping duty provisionally pending further investigation and forwarded copy of the preliminary finding to the interested parties known to be concerned, requesting .....