Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.31 seconds)
Documents citing Hiranyakeshi Sahakari Sakkare ... vs C.C.E. on 21 December, 1988

Dharampal Satyapal And Ors. vs Cce on 1 October, 1999

Shri Vivek Kohli, Advocate appearing for M/s. Gopal Industries and others, submitted that on all the four issues of classification, marketability, input duty relief and the limitation, the appellants had been able to put-up their defence. In particular, he submitted that mere was no suppression and the Department had the knowledge of the activities of the appellant. They had a bona fide belief that the manufactured kimam was not a manufactured commodity. He pleaded that non-following of Chapter X Procedure was not material. He relied upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Hiranyakeshi Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit v. CCE, Belgaum 1989 (21) ECR 280 (CEGAT-SB-D) in support of his contention that substantive benefits admissible under law cannot be denied for not following the procedure.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Eid Parry India Ltd vs Ltu Chennai on 26 July, 2023

2008 (232) ELT 81 (T) o Ugar Sugar Works Ltd vs CCE, 2007 (214) ELT 334(T) o Shri Hiranyakeshi Sahakari Sakkare Karkhana Niyamit Vs CCE - Final Order No. 459/2007 dt. 18.4.2007 - 2008 (232) ELT 81 o Sakthi Sugars Ltd vs CCE (2008) 230 ELT 676 o Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd vs CCE - (2009) TIOL 372 • Since Rectified Spirit was excisable but exempt under a notification, appellants had reversed 6% value of exempted goods viz Rs.5,89,89,475/- and complied with the obligation under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Grasim Industries Ltd. vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 14 March, 1990

5A. On the issue of eligibility of the appellant for the benefit of Notification 118/75, learned counsel places reliance on two decisions of this Tribunal in the cases of National Mechanical Works, Calcutta v. C.C.E., Calcutta reported in 1983 (14) ELT 2370 and Hiranyakeshi Sahakari Sakkare Karkhana Niyamit v. C.C.E. reported in 1989 (39) ELT 658. Shri Khaitan submits that the ratio of the above cited cases would apply squarely to the present appeal, as the appellant has satisfied the essential requirements of captive consumption stipulated in the above notification.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Wockhardt Medical Centre vs Collector Of Customs on 15 October, 1992

3.2. Lastly, he submits that even if it is assumed and held that there was a condition by implication to produce the certificate at the time of clearance, this is merely a procedural lapse beyond his control, as mentioned above. Substantive benefit of the notification should not be denied merely on procedural lapse. He relies for this purpose on 1989 (39) E.L.T. 658 (Tribunal) [Hiranyakeshi Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit v. CCE Belgaum].
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 30 July, 2001

2. The counsel for the appellant is not doubt right that the decision of the Tribunal have held that the omission to comply with the condition is no ground for denying the benefit of notification. This is the view taken by the Tribunal in Hiranyakeshi Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit vs. CCE 1989 (39) ELT 658. However, the department representative points out that the condition in the notification that the goods must have been used in the other factory of the same manufacturer has not been complied with. The point that he makes, that the explanation that the appellant offered, the it had to get the refractories manufactured at the Taloja factory because of labour trouble in other two factories would itself show that no goods could have been manufactured in the other two factories with the use of these refractories. Counsel for the appellant cites the order dated 19.8.88 of the Collector of Central Excise in which he has stated that the benefit of the notification would be available to the refractories used at Dewas and Thane. However that was not the issue before the Collector. The notice upon which he was adjudicating proposed penalty on the manufacturer for removing goods from the Taloja factory for manufacturing goods without a licence and not maintaining the prescribed records. The notice did not call upon the appellant to pay duty. The observations of the Collector with regard to the availability of the exemption are in the nature of obiter and not binding.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 1 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1