Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.53 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Haryana Steel & Alloy Ltd vs C.C.E.- Delhi - Iv on 19 February, 2014

Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Raigad on 6 July, 2015

75.12 In the light? of these judgments of the Honble Apex Court, in the case under consideration, I am of the considered view that the appellants are not entitled to avail Cenvat credit of the duty paid on ship-breakers invoices. 6.2 We find that in addition to the above arguments, the learned counsel has also raised the issue relating to parallel invoices and extended period of time. We find that these issues have also been discussed in the case of Bhagwati Steel Cast (supra). The relevant portions are extracted below:-
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 41 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Ramoji Granite Pvt Ltd vs Rajkot on 3 December, 2024

Del) • National Boards Vs. CCE, Calicut -2014(313)ELT 113(Tri.-Bang,) • Ramchandra Rexins Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore-I- 2013(295)ELT 116 (Tri,.-Bang) • Soni Vallabhadas Liladhar & Others Vs. CC, Jamnagar -1983(13)ELT 1408 (SC) • Bhana Khalpa Bhai Patel Vs. CC, Bulsar-1997(96)ELT 211(SC) • Rajesh Kumar Vs. CESTAT-2016(333)ELT 256(Del) • Haryana Steel & Alloys Ltd. Vs. CCE, New Delhi -2017(355)ELT 451 (Tri,-Del) • Somesh Paper Tubes P Ltd. Vs. CCE, Daman -2014(313)ELT 669 (Tri. Ahmd)
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Crystal Exports vs Cce, Thane Ii on 25 April, 2023

3. Haryana Steel Alloys Vs CCE, New Delhi 2002(148) ELT 377 In this connection, it is observed that the facts of the instant case are different from the one relied upon by the assessee. In all the aforesaid cases the entire proceedings were initiated on the basis of statement of authorized signatory of the respondent or of their employees. Whereas, in the instant case, the proceedings were initiated on the basis of search carried out by the officers, before independent witness under panchnama wherein it revealed that there was no facility to manufacture copper bars / ingots, the fact corroborated by Shri Purushottam Lal, Office Attendent and further corroborated by Shri Ashok Bafna, broker.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Satya Power & Ispat Ltd vs Commissioner (Appeals), Central Gst, ... on 27 August, 2024

9. The conclusion drawn by the Commissioner (Appeals), that had the appellant not removed such goods clandestinely, they would have surely produced the necessary evidences to the contrary is plausible in the circumstances and needs to be affirmed. The appellant has not been able to give any reasonable explanation for the same. Moreover, as observed by the Tribunal in the case of Haryana Steel and Alloys Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST, New Delhi 5 that :-
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1