Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.34 seconds)

4. Whether Order Is To Be Circulated To ... vs Cce, Ludhiana on 9 April, 2010

2.2 Shri B.K. Singh, the learned Jt. CDR defending the impugned order, emphasised that since the unprocessed knitted fabrics from which the processed fabrics had been manufactured, were fully exempt from duty vide Sl. No. 14 of the table annexed to the notification No. 14/02-CE, the condition for concessional rate of duty for processed fabrics is not satisfied and therefore the processed fabrics would be liable to duty at the tariff rate of 24% advalorem and that the Tribunals judgment in case of CCE, Ludhiana vs. Prem Industries (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case as that judgment is based on the Boards Circular No. 680/71/2002-CX dated 10/12/02, in respect of composite mills while the Appellant are not a composite mill.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise ... vs M/S Jai Ganesh Processors on 11 March, 2011

Earlier view that inputs exempted from duty were treated as duty paid inputs as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CCE, Patna v. Usha Martin Industries 1997(94) ELT 460 was reflected in various circulars and circular was issued by the department only on 26.9.2002 withdrawing the earlier circulars, which position was C.E.A. No.228 of 2010 4 noticed by the Tribunal in its earlier judgment in Morarjee Gokuldas Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai 2005(190) ELT 217 and CCE, Ludhiana v. Prem Industries 2009(168) ECR 0133 (Tri. New Delhi). Explanation to the notification created a fiction on treating the exempted inputs to be duty paid inputs.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M/S.Shree Vishnu Processors vs Cce,Chandigarh on 20 January, 2015

9.?In view of the above observations we hold that decisions taken in the case of CCE, Ludhiana v. Prem Industries (supra), Simplex Mills Co. Limited v. CCE (supra) and Morarjee Gokuldas Spg. & Wvg. Co. Limited v. CCE (supra) were correct interpretation of exemption Notification No. 14/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2002, Accordingly, benefit of Sr. No. 12 of Notification No. 14/2002-C.E., will be admissible to the appellants by considering the fabric received for processing as deemed duty paid as per Explanation-II of Notification No. 14/2002-C.E. Any other interpretation will make this explanation redundant.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ludhiana vs M/S Arihant Industries Ltd on 22 January, 2015

9.?In view of the above observations we hold that decisions taken in the case of CCE, Ludhiana v. Prem Industries (supra), Simplex Mills Co. Limited v. CCE (supra) and Morarjee Gokuldas Spg. & Wvg. Co. Limited v. CCE (supra) were correct interpretation of exemption Notification No. 14/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2002, Accordingly, benefit of Sr. No. 12 of Notification No. 14/2002-C.E., will be admissible to the appellants by considering the fabric received for processing as deemed duty paid as per Explanation-II of Notification No. 14/2002-C.E. Any other interpretation will make this explanation redundant.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Arora Knit Fabrics Pvt.Ltd vs Cce, Ludhiana on 20 May, 2016

9.?In view of the above observations we hold that decisions taken in the case of CCE, Ludhiana v. Prem Industries (supra), Simplex Mills Co. Limited v. CCE (supra) and Morarjee Gokuldas Spg. & Wvg. Co. Limited v. CCE (supra) were correct interpretation of exemption Notification No. 14/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2002, Accordingly, benefit of Sr. No. 12 of Notification No. 14/2002-C.E., will be admissible to the appellants by considering the fabric received for processing as deemed duty paid as per Explanation-II of Notification No. 14/2002-C.E. Any other interpretation will make this explanation redundant.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next