Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.31 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Malwa Cotton Spg. Mills vs Cce, Chandigarh on 12 July, 2001

S S Engineering Works vs Kolkata South on 24 March, 2023

5. As per Rule 7(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, the invoices issued by a first stage dealer or a second stage dealer are valid documents for taking Cenvat credit. In this case, there is no dispute about the fact that M/s. SC Enviro Agro India Pvt. Ltd., who had issued the invoices and on the basis of which the Cenvat credit was taken by the appellant, are a second stage dealer. We find that Tribunal in the case of Malwa Cotton Spg. Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh (supra), relying upon the Board Circular No. 96/7/95-CX dated 13-2-95 has held that "mere mention of the words 'on account of the dealer' on the invoices or the name of the dealer on the invoice, in itself, would not make the invoices ineligible documents for availing Modvat credit", so far as the goods have been directly received in the user's premises.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Joya Engineering Industries vs Kolkata North Commissionerate on 5 June, 2023

Ltd. had placed the order for the goods with M/s. SC Enviro Agro India Pvt. Ltd., a second stage dealer who supplied the goods directly under their invoices to the appellant, mentioning the appellant's name as the consignee while at the same time mentioning M/s. Sumitomo Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. as the customer. It is on this basis that Cenvat credit has denied to the Appellant in respect of these invoices. 5. As per Rule 7(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, the invoices issued by a first stage dealer or a second stage dealer are valid documents for taking Cenvat credit. In this case, there is no dispute about the fact that M/s. SC Enviro Agro India Pvt. Ltd., who had issued the invoices and on the basis of which the Cenvat credit was taken by the appellant, are a second stage dealer. We find that Tribunal in the case of Malwa Cotton Spg. Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh (supra), relying upon the Board Circular No. 96/7/95-CX dated 13-2-95 has held that "mere mention of the words 'on account of the dealer' on the invoices or the name of the dealer on the invoice, in itself, would not make the invoices ineligible documents for availing Modvat credit", so far as the goods have been directly received in the user's premises.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Electrotech Enterprises vs Kolkata North Commissionerate on 11 July, 2024

'4. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and have pursued the records. There is no dispute about the fact that the goods have been procured by the appellant through M/s. Sumitomo Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. However, from the records, it is seen that M/s. Sumitomo Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. had placed the order for the goods with M/s. SC Enviro Agro India Pvt. Ltd., a second stage dealer who supplied the goods 3 Ex..Appeal No.79744/18 directly under their invoices to the appellant, mentioning the appellant's name as the consignee while at the same time mentioning M/s. Sumitomo Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. as the customer. It is on this basis that Cenvat credit has denied to the Appellant in respect of these invoices. 5. As per Rule 7(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, the invoices issued by a first stage dealer or a second stage dealer are valid documents for taking Cenvat credit. In this case, there is no dispute about the fact that M/s. SC Enviro Agro India Pvt. Ltd., who had issued the invoices and on the basis of which the Cenvat credit was taken by the appellant, are a second stage dealer. We find that Tribunal in the case of Malwa Cotton Spg. Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh (supra), relying upon the Board Circular No. 96/7/95-CX dated 13-2-95 has held that "mere mention of the words 'on account of the dealer' on the invoices or the name of the dealer on the invoice, in itself, would not make the invoices ineligible documents for availing Modvat credit", so far as the goods have been directly received in the user's premises.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Roshan Lal Bhagirathmal vs Kolkata-Ii on 19 February, 2026

5. As per Rule 7(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, the Involces Issued by a first stage dealer or a second stage dealer are valid documents for taking Cenvat credit. In this case, there is no dispute about the fact that M/s. SC Enviro Agro India Pvt. Ltd., who had Issued the Invoices and on the basis of which the Cenvat credit was taken by the appellant, are a second stage dealer. We find that Tribunal in the case of Malwa Cotton Spg. Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh (supra), relying upon the Board Circular No. 96/7/95-CX dated 13- 2-95 has held that "mere mention of the words 'on account of the dealer' on the invoices or the name of the dealer on the invoice, in itself, would not make the invoices ineligible documents for availing Modvat credit", so far as the goods have been directly received in the user's premises.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bnk Parts Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 14 December, 2001

He also relied upon the decision of the CEGAT A-bench, New Delhi in the case of Punjab Worsted Spg. Mills v. CCE, Chandigarh reported in [2001 (78) ECC 537] where in it has been held that no penalty was imposable as the assessable value which was earlier provisional was being finalised since the issue involved was interpretation and the penalty imposed was set aside.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

D.B.S. Industries And Ors. vs C.C.E. on 2 April, 2004

In Malwa Cotton Spg. Mills Ltd. case, the appellants cleared the grey yarn manufactured in their factory to their depots. The grey yarn were sold as such to wholesale dealers. Certain portion of the yarn were sent to job workers for dyeing. From the job workers. the dyed yarn is received back. They were subsequently sold to other dealers. Rejecting the stand taken by the Revenue the Tribunal took the view that even if the process of dyeing involves manufacture, the job worker is carrying on the manufacturing process. So, that job worker alone is to be made liable for duty on that manufacturing process. It was held that assessable value in respect of grey yarn cannot take in the cost of dyeing.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

M/S Reliant Packaging Films Ltd vs Cce, Delhi-Iii on 8 May, 2008

2. The learned Advocate on behalf of the Appellants submits that there was no stock taking. He also submits that the Panchnama was prepared and the witnesses were not present on the spot. Therefore, the appellants requested for cross examination of the panchas before the Adjudicating Authority which was denied. He further submits that the entire stock taking was conducted within 12 hours of the stock of huge material. He further submits that there is no clandestine removal of goods and therefore, penalty under Section 11AC is not warranted. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Vs CCE Chandigarh reported in 2003 (155) ELT 1561 (Tri). He drew the attention of the Bench to the letter dated 30.9.03 where the appellant debited the duty under protest and disputed the shortage of raw material.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1