Suresh Tobacco Co vs Cgst & Central Excise Vadodara I on 15 May, 2024
A) In the case of V H Patel Tobacco Pvt, Ltd (supra) this Tribunal
considering the identical issue passed the following order:-
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.54 seconds)Laxmi Tobacco Company vs Ahmedabad-Ii on 24 July, 2023
The reference was also made by ld.D.R. to the case of K.P. Pan
Products Pvt.Ltd (supra) but the issue there was whether the
continuous period of 15 days of closure of the factory should
necessarily fall during a particular calendar month and the Tribunal
held that the said period of 15 days of continuous closure could fall in
the two adjacent months also. Thus, this judgment is of no avail to
the Revenue. As regards the Board's circular dt.12.03.2009 stating
that the abatements are subject to pre/post-audit, we do not
necessarily see any fatally irreconcilable contradiction between the
M/S Kay Cee Processors vs Cce, Jalandhar on 4 September, 2015
We find cases of similar nature have been decided by this Tribunal considering the conditions in the Notification No. 14/2002-CE. The Tribunal in the case of Arvind Products Ltd. vs. CCE & ST, Ahmedabad (supra) held as follows :-
M/S Zest Packers Pvt.Ltd vs Cce Ahmedabad-Ii on 22 July, 2015
The reference was also made by ld.D.R. to the case of K.P. Pan Products Pvt.Ltd (supra) but the issue there was whether the continuous period of 15 days of closure of the factory should necessarily fall during a particular calendar month and the Tribunal held that the said period of 15 days of continuous closure could fall in the two adjacent months also. Thus, this judgment is of no avail to the Revenue. As regards the Boards circular dt.12.03.2009 stating that the abatements are subject to pre/post-audit, we do not necessarily see any fatally irreconcilable contradiction between the Boards circulars dt.15.09.1999 & 30.08.1997 on the one hand and the one dt.12.03.2009 on the other in as much as when the adjustment of abatement has been made, nothing prevents Revenue froma auditing the correctness thereof. More importantly, the Boards circulars have no statutory force and have to be ignored to the extent they are in conflict with the judicial pronouncements.
Roquette Riddhi Siddhi Pvt Ltd vs Belgaum on 4 March, 2022
6. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both
sides, a common issue in both the appeals is that whether the
appellant is required to reverse the proportionate cenvat credit on
inputs and input services consumed in by-product while
manufacturing the final goods or not? The said issue has been
settled by the Tribunal in the case of Anil Products Ltd. (supra)
and the said order has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Gujarat High
Court cited (supra).
Roquette Riddhi Siddhi Pvt Ltd vs Belgaum on 6 March, 2022
6. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both
sides, a common issue in both the appeals is that whether the
appellant is required to reverse the proportionate cenvat credit on
inputs and input services consumed in by-product while
manufacturing the final goods or not? The said issue has been
settled by the Tribunal in the case of Anil Products Ltd. (supra)
and the said order has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Gujarat High
Court cited (supra).
Roquette Riddhi Siddhi Pvt Ltd vs Belgaum on 6 March, 2022
6. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both
sides, a common issue in both the appeals is that whether the
appellant is required to reverse the proportionate cenvat credit on
inputs and input services consumed in by-product while
manufacturing the final goods or not? The said issue has been
settled by the Tribunal in the case of Anil Products Ltd. (supra)
and the said order has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Gujarat High
Court cited (supra).
Ms Vinayak Industries vs Jammu on 22 February, 2024
5. On the other hand, the learned DR for the Revenue reiterates
the findings of the impugned order and submits that the decision
relied upon by the appellant in the case of Anil Products Ltd
(supra) has been distinguished by the Tribunal in the case of
Buneesha Chem Pvt Ltd vs. CCE, Raigad - 2019 (370) ELT 533
(Tri. Mum.). She further submits that in the era of self assessment,
it is the duty of the assessee to file the returns and non-filing of
returns in time attracts the penalties.
Go Go International Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Tax, Bangalore ... on 10 October, 2025
In support, they referred to the judgment of
the Tribunal in the case of Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
CCE, Ahmedabad [2011 (23) S.T.T. 475 (Tri. Ahmd.)]
Go Go International Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Tax, Bangalore ... on 10 October, 2025
In support, they referred to the judgment of
the Tribunal in the case of Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
CCE, Ahmedabad [2011 (23) S.T.T. 475 (Tri. Ahmd.)]