Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.27 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Tungabhdra Steel Products Ltd., ... vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 5 September, 2001

Kesoram Cement vs Cce on 7 June, 2005

5. On a careful consideration, I notice that in the cases of Rosa Sugar Works v. CCE, Kanpur (supra) and Nava Karnataka Steels Ltd. v. CCE, Belgaum (supra), the Tribunal after due consideration found that the plain plates, HR sheets are only in the nature of structural or constructions materials used for fabrication/structural purposes and are not covered by the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the present case, the Deputy Commissioner has given clear finding that the items in the matter are used as parts of machinery and are used for conveying the process materials from one process to another. He has clearly noted that they are covered by above stated Board's Circular. Therefore, the judgments cited by the learned Consultant are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, wherein it was held that steel items used for the manufacture of structural supports for various machineries are eligible for the benefit of Modvat credit. Following the ratio of the judgments cited by the learned Consultant, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sakthi Sugars Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 13 February, 2008

In the case of Bellary Steel & Alloys Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum cited by learned Counsel, angles, channels, sheets etc., used in the fabrication and erection of technological structure were recognised as inputs. In that case, the above items were used in the fabrication of structural support to machinery. The benefit of capital goods credit under Rule 57Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 was extended to those items. In the present case, however, the question whether capital goods credit is admissible to similar items which were used for similar purpose will have to be examined with reference to relevant provisions of Rule 2 of the CENVAT Credit Rules. It is not in dispute that the machinery for which structural support was provided was covered under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. In other words, such machinery was covered under Rule 2(b)(i) of the CCR, 2002. Components of such goods were covered under Rule 2(b)(iii). Hence, it appears, CENVAT credit on the said items (channels, angles etc.) is admissible to the appellants in terms of Rule 2(b) of the CCR, 2002. The assessee has been claiming under this provision all throughout.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Rajesh Harilal Gandhi And Shri ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 14 March, 2005

6. Relying upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Guntur v. Computer Connection and Bellary Steels & Alloys Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum and on finding that there is no knowledge, which can be ascribed on part of the appellants for the penalties under Rules 209A, the same have to be determined in view of the totality of the circumstances and when it is found that Shri Rajesh Gandhi is the proprietor used to purchase Oxalic Acid from KPL and reselling in Surat and the adjudicator has found his liability for penalty to be on par with that of the Managing Director of KPL, his role being equated to that of Managing Director of M/s. KPL without any cogent reason to do so to the penalty on the purchase of goods, should be kept at a level lower and not equivalent to the liability of the Managing Director of the assessee company. We cannot uphold the penalty to be imposed on Shri Rajesh Harilal Gandi, the appellant before us, at the level and equal to the penalty imposed on the Managing Director i.e. Rs.5,00,000/ under Rule 209A. We would reduce the same to Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 209A.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1