Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.72 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Indian Explosives Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 13 June, 2012

Jtekt India Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Goods & Service ... on 29 November, 2023

19. The Tribunal decision in the case of Harsiddh Detergents Ltd. Vs CCE Ahmedabad - 1998 (98) ELT 194 (Tribunal) and the case of Indian Explosives Ltd. Vs CCE Hyderabad - 2012 (284) ELT 259 (Tri.- Bang.) were relied by the learned counsel to argue that in situations where there was reduction in prices subsequent to the clearance of the goods, it was held that the same would not affect the manufacturer's liability to pay excise duty and refund cannot be allowed when there is downward revision of the price.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jtekt India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Goods & Service ... on 29 November, 2023

19. The Tribunal decision in the case of Harsiddh Detergents Ltd. Vs CCE Ahmedabad - 1998 (98) ELT 194 (Tribunal) and the case of Indian Explosives Ltd. Vs CCE Hyderabad - 2012 (284) ELT 259 (Tri.- Bang.) were relied by the learned counsel to argue that in situations where there was reduction in prices subsequent to the clearance of the goods, it was held that the same would not affect the manufacturer's liability to pay excise duty and refund cannot be allowed when there is downward revision of the price.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cce-Bhopal vs M/S. Vindhya Teleink Ltd on 22 April, 2015

3. Shri M.S. Negi, ld. DR, assailed the impugned order by reiterating the grounds of appeal and pleaded that as regards the refund claim of Rs. 26,702/-, the respondent should have followed the procedure prescribed under Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, i.e., they should have taken back the goods for repair/re-conditioning on taking the CENVAT Credit of the duty paid and later on should have cleared the goods on payment of duty; that as regards the refund claim of Rs. 1071/- in respect of the goods cleared under invoice 1075 dated 11/12/2002 while the excise invoice mentioned supply rate for the goods as Rs. 47,500/- per k.m. the commercial invoice mentioned the correct rate of Rs. 46,500/- and as such the duty has been paid on higher price; that as regards the refund claim for the amount of Rs. 1,48,253/- in respect of the goods cleared under invoice no. 71 dated 25/4/2003 and the refund claim of amount 87,489/- in respect of the goods cleared to M/s. Tata Tele Services during period from October, 2002 to January, 2003 under invoice, in these cases, the rates have been revised after the clearance of the goods and hence, in terms of the Apex Courts Judgment in the case of MRF Limited Vs. CCE Madras (Supra) and the judgment of Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Mauria Udyog Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 2008 (2011) STR 319 P&H and also the Tribunals judgment in the case of Indian Explosive Limited Vs. CCE Hyderabad reported in 2012 (284) 259 (Tri-Bang), the refund claim would not be admissible.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1