Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.25 seconds)
Documents citing Raymond Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 2 January, 2014

Gtc Industries Ltd. vs Cce Mumbai - V on 29 August, 2018

2. Learned Counsel for appellant contends that the expression 'if any' in rule 6(b)(ii) of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975, implies that the profit margin was to be added only if circumstances so warranted. According to him, the decision in re West Coast Paper E/1143/2010 3 Mills Ltd did not apply in their case owing to special circumstances in which the loss was incurred by M/s West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. On the contrary, it is his contention that the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Raymond Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad [2001 (129) ELT 860 (T-LB)] effectively sustains their claim.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Krcd India Pvt Ltd vs Mumbai Iv on 6 October, 2016

5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that the stampers manufactured and used captively is falling under Chapter 85. As per the use of the stampers, we observe that the stampers are not getting consumed in the CDs though it is used for manufacture of CDs. Therefore, in our view the stampers falling under Chapter 85 qualifies as capital goods. The capital goods are exempted under Notification No. 67/95-CE dated 16/03/1995 even if it is used in the manufacture of exempted final products. We find that the case of the appellant is squarely covered by the judgment cited by the learned counsel, in the case of Raymond Ltd (supra) wherein this Tribunal has observed as under:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1