Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.86 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Ganges International Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Raipur on 24 March, 2014

M/S Phenix Construction Technology vs Commissioner Of C.Ex. & S.Tax on 7 July, 2017

29. The Tribunal in the case of Ganges International Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Raipur 2014 (308) ELT 106 ((Tri-Del), while considering the goods viz. General Fabrication Structures, Auto Welded Beams and Boxes for Thermal Power Project, in the context of its eligibility to exemption under Notification No.6/2006-CE, dt.1.3.2006, mentioned at Sr.No.13 of the table annexed to the Notification, has observed as follows:-
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jsw Steel Limited vs Commissioner Of Gst & Central ... on 1 March, 2024

12. In view of the foregoing reasons, we hold that the impugned order is not in consonance with law and is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside and we do so. The impugned order is set aside and all the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any. 14.3 The Tribunal in the case of Ganges International Pvt Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur 2014 (308) ELT 106 (T) considered the same issue and held that the case is in the nature of General Fabrication Structures, Auto Welded Beams and Boxes, cleared by appellants for use in the Mega Power Project would be eligible for benefit of notification.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S.Atmasco (P) Ltd vs Cce & Customs, Raipur on 27 November, 2014

In fact, the reasonings for denial of benefit of the notification in question , by the adjudicating authority, is also identical to the objections raised by the Revenue in the case of Ganges International (supra). As such, following the above decision of the Tribunal, laying down that even if the general fabrication structures are being used as supporting structures for some machineries, the same are required to be treated as components parts of that machinery and the benefit in Sl.No.338 of the notification no.12/2012-CE would be available inasmuch as the same covers all the components whether finished or not. By following the said decision, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. Stay petition as also appeal gets disposed of in above manner.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M/S.Atmasco (P) Ltd vs Cce & Customs, Raipur on 26 November, 2014

In fact, the reasonings for denial of benefit of the notification in question , by the adjudicating authority, is also identical to the objections raised by the Revenue in the case of Ganges International (supra). As such, following the above decision of the Tribunal, laying down that even if the general fabrication structures are being used as supporting structures for some machineries, the same are required to be treated as components parts of that machinery and the benefit of Sl.No.338 of the notification no.12/2012-CE would be available inasmuch as the same covers all the components whether finished or not. By following the said decision, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. Stay petition as also appeal gets disposed of in above manner.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1