Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.31 seconds)

C.C.E. & S.T. Raipur vs M/S. Cadbury India Ltd on 30 April, 2015

10. In this case the facts are that inputs on which Cenvat Credit was availed were destroyed when work was in progress. Exactly the facts of this case are similar to the facts of the case of Fenner India Ltd. (Supra) and in that case the Honble High Court has held that the assessee is not required to file claim of remission of duty under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules 2002 and provisions of Rule 3(5)(c) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 are not applicable.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Comfort Polymers Pvt. Ltd., vs C.C.E. Jammu on 21 July, 2023

 M/s Cipy Polyurethanes Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Kolhapur-2021 (07) LCX 0315  M/s Kanoria Chemicals & Industries vs. CCE Ahmedabad 2010 (10) LCX 0055  Nectar Lifesciences Ltd. vs. CCE, Chandigarh-II - vide Final Order No. 56185/2013 dated 26.04.2013  Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax Rohtak vs. Park Nonwoven Pvt. Ltd. - 2015 (04) LCX 0222  Park Nonwoven Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Rohtak 2014 (04) LCX 0133 6 E/3357/2010  Park Nonwoven Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Delhi-III vide Final Order No. A/60318/2017 dt. 1.03.2017  Park Nonwoven Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Panchkula Vide Final Order No. 63382/2018 DT. 2.11.2018  Arvind International Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur 2012 (04) LCX0066  CCE, Chennai-IV vs. Fenner India Ltd. -2013 (12) LCX0113
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1