Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.47 seconds)Ambuja Cements Limited vs Commissioner, Cgst & Central Excise ... on 17 March, 2023
3.1 It is further submitted that Cenvat credit is otherwise also
admissible as the compensation paid is in the nature of additional
consideration for manpower supply service rendered by M/s.
Mahadev Supplier. Learned Counsel has relied upon the decision of
this Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs.
Commissioner, Central Goods and Services reported as 2019
(7) TMI 488 , CESTAT, New Delhi. Finally it is submitted that
once the tax has been paid by the service provider, the Cenvat
credit is admissible irrespective of the fact whether the activity of
supplier was taxable or not.
Oil & Natural Gas Coporation Ltd vs Dehradun on 18 March, 2025
Hindustan Zinc Ltd vs Commissioner, Cgst & Central Excise ... on 17 July, 2025
Hindustan Zinc Limited v. Commissioner of Central Goods, Service
Tax and Central Excise, Customs, Udaipur, Final Order No.
50519/2024 dated 25.4.2025 in Service tax Appeal No. 51497 of
2019-CESTAT New Delhi
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Versus Commissioner of
Central Goods & Service Tax, Dehradun, Final Order No.
6
50415/2025 dated 18.3.2025 in Service Tax appeal No. 52596 of
2019-CESTAT New Delhi
Bharat Aluminium Company Limited v. Principal Commissioner of
Central Tax, & Central Excise, Raipur, Final Order No. 50128/2024
dated 17.1.2024 in Service Tax Appeal No. 50800 of 2020 (DB)-
CESTAT New Delhi
Sarda Energy & Minerals Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner, Central
GST, Central Excise & Customs, Raipur (C. G.), Final Order No.
50757/2023 dated in Service Tax Appeal No. 51699 of 2017-
CESTAT New Delhi.
Hindustan Zinc Ltd vs Udaipur on 15 January, 2026
In support of this contention learned counsel placed reliance
upon the decision of the Tribunal in the own case of the appellant on
similar issues in M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs. The Commissioner,
Central Goods and Service Tax, Udaipur7.
The India Cements Ltd vs Tiruchirapalli Ce&St on 26 August, 2024
In the case of M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central
Excise & Service Tax, Udaipur reported in 2017 (49) S.T.R. 315 (Tri-Del.),
the credit availed on Input services in the nature of construction of RCC wall
and tube well were allowed.
Cipla Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... on 5 September, 2024
6. According to Learned Counsel for appellant, they have complied
with both threshold eligibility, as well as the restrictions stipulated, in the
notification as the Letter of Permission (LoP) had been issued to them
for export of 'bulk drugs and formulations' which the impugned goods,
undeniably, are. It was also submitted that the approval for such
clearances was granted by the competent authority, viz., the jurisdictional
Development Commissioner. He placed reliance on the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise, Shillong v. Wood
E/86958/2014
6
Craft Products Ltd [1995 (77) ELT 23 (SC)] on the intent of the
expression 'similar' and of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Central
Excise, Salem v. Hindustan Lever Ltd [2011 (263) ELT 697 (Tri-
Chennai)], in Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem v. Hindustan
Lever Ltd [2011 (268) ELT 252 (Tri-Chennai)] and in Hindustan Zinc
Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Udaipur [2018
(2) TMI 1386 - CESTAT NEW DELHI]. Several decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and of the Tribunal on exclusive jurisdictional
competence of the Development Commissioner were also cited.
The Amaravathi Cooperative Sugar Mills ... vs Coimbatore on 3 October, 2024
2.1 Shri K Mani, learned Consultant has stated that the goods have
not been written of and were only categorised as 'non-moving items'
and hence credit could not be denied. Further the same legal issue was
raised by CERA in 2008 and was contested and clarifications sought
from the Range, hence the issue was known to the department and
only the normal period can be invoked, hence the SCN dt 04/10/2013
was time barred. Further the confirmation of demand made is without
jurisdiction and authority of law as there was no machinery provision
during the above said period. He stated that the power to recover the
amounts under Rule 3(5), (5A) and (5B) by invoking Rule 14, was
granted only by amendment made vide Notification 3/2013-CE(NT)
dated 01.03.2013, hence no recovery under Rule 3(5B) of the CENVAT
Credit Rules 2004 can be made for the disputed period which pertains
to the FY 2010 - 11 and 2011 - 12. He relied on the decision of
CESTAT, New Delhi in Final Order No.51733/2021 dated 15.07.2021
in the case of M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central
Goods and Service Tax Commissionerate. He hence prayed that the
order required to be set aside.
1