Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.39 seconds)
Documents citing Ballarpur Industries Ltd. vs Cce on 18 October, 2000

C.C.E. Madurai-2 vs M/S Gomathy Mills on 11 May, 2001

Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter in all the above appeals for de novo consideration in the light of the ratio of the larger bench decision in the case of Ballarpur Industries vs. CCE (supra) and the earlier judgement cited by the SDR. The written submissions filed by the respondents is also required to be considered buy the original authority in the de novo proceedings after granting opportunity of hearing to the parties. Thus the impugned order is set aside and the matter remanded for de novo consideration. The appeals and cross objections are allowed by remand to the original authority.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Siv Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 11 October, 2001

5. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and we are of the considered opinion that Modvat credit is available and the spares used in the turbine of the generator used for generation of electricity, are used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product namely Viscos Stable fibre and yarn which are cleared on payment of duty. The issue is no longer res integra and has been finally decided by the Tribunal in the case of CCE., Meerut v. Gangeshwar Ltd. Reported in 2000 (36) RLT 189 (CEGAT) and in the case of Ballarpur Industries v. CCE. Reported in 2000 (116) ELT 312 (T). Therefore, we set aside the imdpugned order and allow the appeal. The Stay application is also disposed of accordingly.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 1 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Karnataka Soaps And Detergents Ltd. vs Cce on 1 June, 2005

Ballarpur Industries v. CCE, Nagpur - 2001 (134) ELT 94 (T) Modvat - Shifting of goods produced at one unit of assessee to another unit for captive consumption in manufacture of final goods chargeable at nil rate of duty, does not involve any 'sale' there being no transfer of properties as 'units' are not separate legal entities, hence, provisions of erstwhile Rule 57CC of Central Excise Rules, 1944 not applicable and Modvat credit not reversible under erstwhile Rule 57I ibid for alleged violation of these provisions.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 13 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Jocil Limited vs Commissioner Of Customs on 27 August, 2004

On our appreciation of the facts we notice that the Tribunal in the cited case of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant Ltd., has considered the Larger Bench judgments rendered in the case of Ballarpur Industries (supra) and Jawahar Mills Ltd. (supra) to overrule the Revenue's contention that there has to be direct participation of goods for claiming the benefit of modvat credit. In the cited case the facts were identical inasmuch as the allegation was that the capital goods were used for generation of steam and electricity and duty paid on such capital goods were utilized while paying duty in respect of iron and steel products manufactured by the assessee therein. We find that this judgment squarely applies of the facts of the case.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commr. Of Cus. & C. Ex. vs Ashima Fabrics on 12 June, 2002

9. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Ballarpur Industries Ltd. v. CCE, in our view, has rightly been relied upon by the Commissioner for his conclusion that the PVA is raw material. The Court was construing the words in Notification 105/82 which granted concession from excise duty to goods, in the manufacture of which any goods falling under Item 68 of the tariff have been used as raw material or component parts. The Court declined to accept the contention on behalf of the Collector that to become raw material, the goods must 'either in their original or altered form endure as a composite element of the end-product'. It concluded as follows :
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of C.Ex. vs Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd. on 9 February, 2001

5. The learned Counsel mentioned that a similar proviso was inserted in Rule 57D(2). However, the said proviso to Rule 57D(2) was further amended by Notification No. 17/95 dated 18.5.1995; that a very major amendment was made only in the proviso to Rule 57D(2) which now provided" used for manufacture of final products or for any other purpose, within the factory of production," that such an amendment has not been made in proviso to Rule 57R(2) as the Government is well aware that the electricity would be used outside the factory and it consciously avoided to amend proviso to Rule 57R; that accordingly words "for any other purpose" cannot be confined to use within the factory of production. He thus contended that turbine is thus neither hit by provisions of Rule 57R(1) nor by the proviso to Rule 57R(2). The learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ballarpur Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Belgaum wherein it was held that Rule 57D(2) does not set out the condition precedent for extending Modvat Credit and non-fulfilment of the condition of Rule 57D(2) cannot result in disentitlement of an assessee to credit. He contended that similarly non-fulfilment of the condition of Rule 57R will not make them ineligible to capital goods credit if it is available under Rule 57Q.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

German Remedies Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 18 April, 2002

3.3 Another Notification No. 27/94-CE. (N.T.), dated 17-6-94 was also issued setting out the procedure to be followed, 3.4 The learned Advocates contended that the said amendment evidently was the measure of liberalisation and relaxation of rigors of the sub-rule as it stood on 1-3-1994; that the amendment clearly brings out the intention of the Government that ownership of capital goods was no longer the criteria for availing the credit; that the amended provisions only imposed additional condition in a case where the capital goods are acquired by way of lease, hire-purchase or loan agreement; that, however, it does not mean that the said provision has to be satisfied in all the cases where Modvat credit on capital goods is claimed; that in other words, where the acquisition of capital goods is not under the method mentioned in Rule 57R(3), the conditions of Rule 57R(3) are not applicable; that excise duty is not concerned with the ownership of the goods; that the taxable event is on manufacture and the manufacturer is liable to pay excise duty because he causes manufacture; that the ownership of the goods has no relevance for duty liability of the final product; that the Rule 57R(3) as it stands now does not have the explicit condition that the capital goods should be owned by the manufacturer of the final product that apparently, Rule 57R(3) is not the only situation dealing with acquisition of capital goods by a manufacturer of the final product. Reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of Ballarpur Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E., Belgaum - 2000 (116) E.L.T. 312 (T) wherein it was held by the Larger Bench of the Appellate Tribunal that "Rule 57D(2) stipulates that credit of specified duty allowed in respect of any input 'shall not be denied or varied' on the ground that an exempted intermediate product has come into existence during the manufacture of a final product". This expression cannot be equated with the expression "Credit shall be allowed only on the ground mentioned in the sub-rule".
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 Next