Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.78 seconds)
Documents citing Cce vs G.M. Laminates Pvt. Ltd. on 5 March, 2004

Modern Malleable Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 28 November, 2007

5.3 To support its arguments, the ld. Counsel for the Appellant relied on the decision in (1) Jawahar Metal Industries Ltd. v. CCE-Meerut , (2) Kerala Electric Lamp Works v. CCE-Cochin (3) CCE v. Weldekar Laminates Pvt. Ltd. (Re: Rule 57A Central Excise Rules), (4) Consolidated Petrotech Industries Ltd. v. CC . He also relied on the meaning of the term "apparatus" given in the Webster's New Dictionary And Thesaurus (Concise Edition) which reads as under:
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

4. Whether Order Is To Be Circulated To ... vs M/S. Cce, Meerut on 19 January, 2009

5. I also find that in this case, the Cenvat credit demand for period from April01 to May04 period has been raised vide SCN dt.22.11.05 invoking extended period under proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act,1944 on the ground that  while submitting the details of Cenvat credit in the monthly returns/declarations filed earlier, there was no mention of the specific use of welding electrodes and asbestos jointing sheets which is a vital fact for deciding the admissibility of Cenvat credit in respect of spares, components or accessories of capital goods and thus the respondents have suppressed the fact of specific use of the said items with intention to avail the inadmissible Cenvat credit on the said items under the garb of spare, components or accessories. When the Department acknowledge that the fact of taking Cenvat credit in respect of welding electrodes and asbestos jointing sheets had been declared by the Appellants in the Cenvat credit declaration, it cannot allege that the Appellants have suppressed this information from it  the Departmental officers, while checking the Cenvat credit declaration and ER-1/R.T.12 returns could have asked the Appellant about the specific use of these items. Honble Supreme Court in a series of judgments in cases of CCE vs Chemplur Drugs & Laminates reported in 1989(40)ELT.276(SC), CCE, Mumbai vs Bell Granite reported in 2006(198)ELT.161(SC) and Kores India Ltd. vs CCE, Chennai reported in 2004(174)ELT.7(SC) has held that something positive, other than mere inaction a failure on the part of a manufacturer or producer or conscious  or deliberate with-holding of information, when the manufacture knew otherwise, is required before he is saddled with duty liability for period beyond the normal limitation period. In view of this, I hold that the circumstances for invoking proviso to Section 11A(1) do not exist in this case and since the demand for period from April01 to May04 has been raised vide SCN dt.22.11.05, the same is time barred.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Customs Central Excise And Service Tax vs Z Y G Pharma Pvt. Ltd. on 19 June, 2017

); CCE Vs. Punjab Laminates Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2006 (202) ELT 578 (SC); and, Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vs. CCE order dated 10/11/2016 passed by the Gujarat High Court, at Ahemdabad and, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal was justified in holding that extended period of five years and mandatory equal penalty are not attracted.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - R K Dubey - Full Document
1