Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.44 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Central ... vs M/S. Steel Strips Ltd on 22 April, 2003

Hindustan Zinc Ltd vs Commissioner, Central Excise &Amp ... on 25 April, 2022

(ii) Invoices issued in the name of Head Office instead of factory unit The availment of income tax credit is the creature of statute and the amounts to a substantial benefit which can not be denied based upon the some procedural irregularity. The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has allowed the Cenvat Credit even of zerox copy of the invoices holding that the Cenvat Credit cannot be denied on the basis of mere procedural irregularity. Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Commissioner of Chandigarh vs Stelko Strips Ltd reported as [2010 (255) ELT 397 (P&H)] while relying upon the earlier decision in the case of CCE Ludhiana vs Ralson India Ltd. reported as [2006 (202) ELT 65 (P&H)]. The Commr. of C. Ex., Delhi-
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sushila Chitra Mandir vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 9 July, 2004

28. Similar view has been reiterated in Flash Laboratories Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, (2003) 2 SCC 86 : Hindustan Motor Pressing Works v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune (2003) 3 SCC 559 ; Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Steel Strips Ltd., (2003) 5 SCC 216 and Commissioner of Central Excise, Bombay v. Allied Photographic India Ltd., (2004) 4 SCC 34.
Allahabad High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Smt. Jyoti Khare vs State Of U.P.,Thru.Secy.,Housing & ... on 26 May, 2017

Similar view has been reiterated in Flash Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, (2003) 2 SCC 86; Hindustan Motor Pressing Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune, (2003) 3 SCC 559; Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh Vs. Steel Strips Ltd., (2003) 5 SCC 216; and Commissioner of Central Excise, Bombay Vs. Allied Photographic India Ltd., (2004) 4 SCC 34.
Allahabad High Court Cites 99 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pragati Metals Pvt. Ltd., Mamta And ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 25 March, 2004

The learned Advocate also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2004 (60) RLT 3 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court has held that cold rolling of hot rolling strips does not amount to manufacture in view of tariff description of Item No. 26AA (iii) of Erstwhile Central Excise Tariff, Finally he referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Chandigarh II v. Steel Strips Ltd., 2003 (87) ECC 246 (SC) : 2003 (56) RLT 1 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court has remanded the matter to record finding on the question whether the Excise Authorities have laid any evidence before the first Adjudicating Authority on the question as to whether cold rolled strips are the result of a process of manufacture undertaken by the respondents. Learned Advocate therefore contended that the first issue to be decided is whether the process of cold rolled process undertaken by them on hot rolled pieces amounts to manufacture. He also contended that the benefit of Notification No. 67/95 will be available to them as the same has been amended by the Notification No. 35/2001-CE dated 29.6.2001; that by this amending notification it has been provided that the benefit of Notification No. 67/95 in respect of goods, which are cleared by a manufacturer of dutiable and exempted final products, after discharging the obligation prescribed in Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 shall be available.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Indian Strips And Ors. vs Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... on 25 March, 2004

13. The latest pronouncement on the issue is again by the Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Chandigarh-II v. Steel Strips, 2003 (87) ECC 246 (SC) : 2003 (154) ELT 336 (SC) where the Hon'ble Court considered its decision cited supra (1995 (77) ELT 248) and remanded the case directing that the issue whether cold rolling a hot rolled product amounts to manufacture be examined on the following lines:
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 8 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Recron Synthetics Ltd. vs Cce on 15 January, 2008

3. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that recovery of interest under Section 11AB was inserted on 11th May, 2001. In this case, credits have been reversed prior to 11.5.2001 and, Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act is not applicable. He further submits that the appellant availed irregular credit on bona fide manner and reversed the same before issue of the show cause notice and, penalty cannot be imposed. He relied upon the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Sigma Steel Tubes Ltd. Reported in and Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana v. Steel Strips Ltd. reported in 2008(221) ELT 193 (P&H). He also cited several decisions of the Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S.Recron Synthetics Ltd vs Cce, Allahabad on 15 January, 2008

3. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that recovery of interest under Section 11 AB was inserted on 11th May, 2001. In this case, credits have been reversed prior to 11.5.2001 and, Section 11 AB of the Central Excise Act is not applicable. He further submits that the appellant availed irregular credit on bona fide manner and reversed the same before issue of the show cause notice and, penalty cannot be imposed. He relied upon the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sigma Steel Tubes Ltd. Reported in 2007 (218) ELT 657 (P&H) and Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana Vs. Steel Strips Ltd. reported in 2008(221) ELT 193 (P&H). He also cited several decisions of the Tribunal and the Honble High Court.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next