Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.39 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Alembic Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ... on 19 May, 2015

Tata Motors Limited vs Pune I on 17 August, 2016

5. Learned Counsel for appellant relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in PR Rolling Mills Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirupathi [2010 (249) ELT 232 (Tri-Bang)] to demonstrate that the scrap could well have been cleared under rule 4(5)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 without payment of duty and upon the decision of the Tribunal in Alembic Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara-II [2014 (308) ELT 535 (Tri-Ahmd)] that there was no cause for them to evade duty with deliberate intent in a revenue neutral situation. Two earlier disputes of almost identical nature pertaining to their erstwhile avatar as M/s TELCO [CESTAT order no. 1823-1829/WZB/2006/C-III(EB) dated 7th September 2006 and CESTAT order no. 1722/WZB/2004/C-I dated 16th November 2004] had been decided in their favour by the Tribunal which relied upon the decision of the Larger Bench in re Wyeth Laboratories [2000 (120) ELT 218] to hold that such clearances are not dutiable.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chheda Developments vs Commissioner Of Cgst & Central ... on 11 September, 2024

5. I have perused the appeal paper book, relevant provisions of law, relied upon judicial decisions on the issue and other material available on record. Going by the judicial precedent that emerged through interpretation of the provision of law, there can be no second opinion that credit eligibility is to be examined as on the date receipt of input services and it is not governed by latter development such as portion of property getting converted into immovable property after receipt of completion certificate as could be noticed from para 12 and 14 of the relied upon judgment passed in the case of M/s. Alembic Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Vadodara-I reported in 2019-TIOL-358-CESTAT-AHM. Otherwise also going by the provision of law such sale of immovable property having been excluded by statute namely by the Finance Act, 1994, under Section 65B(44) from the definition of service that is apparently done taking the constitutional mandate available under Section 366(29) of the Constitution of India, including the same as a component of exempted service through Explanation-3 added to ST/86853/2021 5 Rule, 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 can't be said to be a validly legislated rule in view of operation of Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, equally applicable to Service Tax matters as covered under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. Hence the order.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1