Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.35 seconds)
Documents citing Associated Cement Companies Ltd vs Cce Belgaum on 28 April, 2008

Ambuja Cements Limited vs Surat-I on 18 May, 2022

services used for windmills is available irrespective of the fact that windmill machinery is exempted from payment of excise duty  ZF Steering Gear (India) Ltd- 2015 (317) ELT 580 (Tn-Mumbai)  Ballarpur Industries Ltd v CCE, Belgaum- 2000 (116) ELT 312 (Tri-Del)  Associated Cement Companies Ltd v CCE, Belgaum- 1999 (108) ELT 477 (Tri-Mad) Credit of Housekeeping Services is available  Balkrishna Industries Ltd v CCE 2010 (254) ELT 301 (Tn-Mumbai)  CCE, Bangalore v Millipore India Pvt. Ltd.- 2012 (26) STR 514 (Kar)  Wipro Ltd v. CCE- 2018 (10) GSTL 172 (Mad)  Rotork Control (India) Pvt Ltd 2010 (20) STR 684 (Tri-Chennai) Credit of Pest Control Services is available  Hinduja Foundries Ltd v CCE- 2017 (52) STR 190 (Tri-Chennai)  ADC India Communications Ltd. v. CCE- 2012 (283) E.L.T. 415 (Tri. - Bang.)
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commr. Of Central Excise, Bolpur vs M/S Vikash Ceramic Pvt. Ltd on 23 August, 2012

In the case of Visavandatta Cement Vs. CCE, Belgaum, Honble CESTAT held that Waste and Scrap of refractory material not classifiable under Ch.69 of CETA85 being not specified thereunder. Since it is not specified under which S.H. of Ch.69 the item fall, there is no jurisdiction to levy duty on the item. The item as such is not excisable. On perusal of show-cause notice, we find that the Department initiated the proceedings to classify fire bricks grog as the refractory bricks broken into pieces to certain specified sizes under Chapter 6901.00 of CETA, 1985, for which the respondents were claiming it as not excisable. Further, from the records of the case, we find that the goods are sold in gunny bags in loose condition. In these circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the clear and cogent findings in the order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), which is upheld and the appeal filed by the Revenue, which is devoid of merit, is dismissed.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1