Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.25 seconds)
Documents citing Technologies Pvt. Ltd.) vs Cce & St, Noida on 4 June, 2015

The Commissioner Of Central Goods vs . M/S Ishaan Technologies on 23 September, 2021

6. The respondent and other co-noticees, being aggrieved by the adjudication order, thereafter preferred appeals before the Tribunal [Appeal Nos. E/76154/2014 (Ishaan Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE&ST), E/76156-76160/2014 & E/76174-76175/2014 (appeals by co-noticees), E/76094/2014 to E/76099/2014 (CCE&ST, Shillong Vs. Manaksia Ltd.) and Appeal No. E/76155/2014 (Manaksia Ltd. Vs. CCE&ST, Shillong)]. The said appeals were disposed of by the Page 5 of 12 Tribunal by the common impugned judgment and order dated 18th December, 2019 and the appeals of Ishaan (respondent), the co- noticees and Manaksia Ltd., Kutch were allowed, whereas the appeals filed by the Revenue were rejected.
Meghalaya High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - H S Thangkhiew - Full Document

M/S Xilinx(I) Technology Services ... vs The Commissioner on 1 February, 2016

These services were received by the appellants in connection with the accounting pay roll, tax and regularity of services rendered by the management and consultants. That these services were essential in functioning and compliance of statutory and legal requirements. That, such services are covered by the definition, which includes within its ambit, the services related to business activities. He placed reliance in the judgments M/s HCL Techno. Ltd. Vs CCE ST Noida, 2015 TIOL 1977, CESTAT Delhi, M/s Hindalco Industries Vs CCE 2014, TIOL 1313, CESTAT Ahmedabad .
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Eaton Fluid Power Ltd vs Commisioner Central Excise And Service ... on 4 December, 2023

While clarifying that Appellant had not taken any credit on trading activities but had only reversed proportionate CENVAT Credit in terms of Rule 6(3)(iii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 out of abundant caution but unfortunately has been subjected to harassment in undergoing the entire adjudication and appeal procedure despite the fact that in the case of Tata Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE as reported in 2016 (42) STR-290 (Tri- Mumbai), it has been clearly held that Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 cannot be used as a tool of operation to extract the amount which is much beyond the remedial measure and the amount which cannot be collected directly can never be collected indirectly as well. He also challenged the legality of the findings of the Commissioner in respect of no exercise of option in stating that the requirement to file an option later is applicable only in cases where an assesse is exercising option under Rule 6(3)(ii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and no such requirement for exercising any option for paying an amount in terms of Rule 6(3)(iii) was available in the statute itself, for which the order passed by the Commissioner is required to be set aside.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Central Goods vs . M/S Manaksia Limited on 23 September, 2021

4. The respondent, being aggrieved by the order of appropriation and other co-noticees, being aggrieved by the adjudication order, then preferred appeals before the Tribunal [Appeal Nos. E/76154/2014 (Ishaan Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE&ST), E/76156-76160/2014 & E/76174-76175/2014 (appeals by co-noticees), E/76094/2014 to E/76099/2014 (CCE&ST, Shillong Vs. Manaksia Ltd.) and Appeal No. E/76155/2014 (Manaksia Ltd. Vs. CCE&ST, Shillong)] The said appeals were disposed of by the Tribunal by the common impugned order dated 18th December, 2019 and while the appeals of M/s. Ishaan Technologies and the co-noticees were allowed, the appeals filed by the Revenue were rejected and the order of appropriation of amount of Rs.2,37,57,760/- passed by the Commissioner against the respondent was also reversed.
Meghalaya High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - H S Thangkhiew - Full Document
1