Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 65 (0.80 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner, Central Excise, Jaipur vs M/S. Raj. Spinning & Weaving Mills &Anr on 13 February, 2012

M/S.India Cements Ltd vs The Custom on 6 March, 2015

15. Accordingly, following the principles laid down in the decision reported in 2010 (255) E.L.T.481 (Commissioner of Central Excise Jaipur V. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd.) and the earlier decisions of this Court in C.M.A.No.3101 of 2005 dated 13.12.2012 and C.M.A.No.1265 of 2014 dated 10.7.2014, we are inclined to allow the appeal, thereby set aside the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - R Sudhakar - Full Document

2. The Fact Of The Case Is That The ... vs 5.We Have Considered The Submissions ... on 8 March, 2016

We have also noticed that the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. (supra) as relied upon the Honble High Court in the appellants own case, allowed Modvat credit on MS channels, steel plants etc. as capital goods used for erection of chimney for diesel generating set. The findings of the Commissioner that these are structures fixed to earth with concrete foundations and are immovable appears to be beyond the scope of the show cause notice.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 19 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

M/S. Gurunanak Metal Works vs Cce,Thane on 10 March, 2016

15.?Accordingly, following the principles laid down in the decision reported in 2010 (255) E.L.T. 481 (Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd.) and the earlier decisions of this Court in C.M.A. No. 3101 of 2005, dated 13-12-2012 and C.M.A. No. 1265 of 2014, dated 10-7-2014, we are inclined to allow the appeal, thereby set aside the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2011 is closed.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ultratech Cement Ltd vs Cce &St, Jaipur-I on 9 November, 2016

10. Hence, following the principles laid down in the decision reported in 2010 (255) E.L.T.481 = 2010-TIOL-51-SC-CX (Commissioner of Central Excise Jaipur V. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd.) and the earlier decision of this Court in C.M.A.No.3101 of 2005 dated 13.12.2012, we are inclined to allow the appeal, thereby set aside the order of the Tribunal.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 4 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S.Madras Aluminium Company on 20 July, 2017

10. Hence, following the principles laid down in the decision reported in 2010 (255) E.L.T.481 (Commissioner of Central Excise Jaipur V. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd.) and the earlier decision of this Court in C.M.A.No.3101 of 2005 dated 13.12.2012, we are inclined to allow the appeal, thereby set aside the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeals stand allowed.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Prism Cement Unit-Ii vs Cce & St,Bhopal on 28 October, 2016

14. The Larger Bench decision in Vandana Global Ltd.s case (supra) laid down that even if the iron and articles were used as supporting structurals, they would not be eligible for the credit, considering the amendment made w.e.f. 07.07.2009 as a clarification amendment and hence to be considered retrospectively. However, we find that the said decision of the Larger Bench was considered by the Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mundra Ports & Special Economic Zone Ltd.  2015 (04) LCX0197, wherein it was observed that the amendment made on 07.07.2009 cannot be held to be clarificatory and as such would be applicable only prospectively.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

M/S.Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. Unit - Iv vs Coms,C.Ex - Bolpur on 5 July, 2018

14. The Larger Bench decision in Vandana Global Ltd.s case (supra) laid down that even if the iron and articles were used as supporting structurals, they would not be eligible for the credit, considering the amendment made w.e.f. 07.07.2009 as a clarification amendment and hence to be considered retrospectively. However, we find that the said decision of the Larger Bench was considered by the Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mundra Ports & Special Economic Zone Ltd. 2015 (04) LCX0197, wherein it was observed that the amendment made on 07.07.2009 cannot be held to be clarificatory and as such would be applicable only prospectively.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next