Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.37 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Central Excise, Rajkot vs Ashok Iron & Steel Fabricators on 7 January, 2002

4. Whether Order Is To Be Circulated To ... vs M/S Mahindra Gujarat Tractors Ltd on 12 September, 2014

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant M/s Mahindra Gujarat Tractor Ltd Vadodara were manufacturing tractors which got exempted as per Notification No.23/2004-CE, dt.09.07.2004. Appellant stopped availing benefit of CENVAT Credit on the inputs received w.e.f. 09.07.2004 for the manufacture of exempted tractors. Appellant on their own calculated the CENVAT Credit attributable to the inputs lying in stock as well as in the finished goods on 08.07.2004 and reversed an amount of Rs.9,28,813/- on 08.07.2004, Rs.28,09,000/- on 11.07.2005, and a further sum of Rs.3,79,312/- was paid on 05.12.2005 through PLA on account of interest. Subsequently, appellant realized that CENVAT Credit with respect to the goods lying in stock, as well as those contained in the finished goods, on the date of exemption was not required to be reversed/paid in view of the Larger Bench decision in the case of CC Rajkot Vs Ashok Iron & Steel Fabricators Pvt.Ltd [2002 (140) ELT 227 (Tri-LB)] and accordingly filed refund claim. Refund claim of the appellant was rejected as per OIO No.REFUND/13/53/2007-08, dt.24.04.2007 which was upheld by the first appellate authority under the impugned OIA dt.28.09.2007 issued on 16.10.2007 against which the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jyoti Cement Spun Pipe Works And Anr. vs Cce on 13 August, 2004

6. Shri L. Narasimha Murthy, Ld. SDR appearing for the Revenue pleaded that decisions relied upon by the appellants are not applicable in the present case as in case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot v. Ashok Iron & Steel Fabricators (supra), it was held that there is no provision in the Rules which provides for a reversal of credit by the excise authorities except where it has been illegally or irregularly taken, whereas in the case of Raghuvar (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi (supra), the issue was entirely different.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Tractor And Farm Equipment Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise on 28 November, 2014

2.4. A detailed reply was submitted by the appellant on 28.5.2005 refuting the department's stand by relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd., 1999 (112) ELT 353 (SC) and a decision of a Larger Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot v. Ashok Iron and Steel Fabricators, 2002 (140) ELT 277 (Tri-LB).
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

M/S. H.M.T. & Ors vs Cce, Panchkula on 12 August, 2008

13. On perusal of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. (supra), Five Members Bench decision in the case of Ashok Iron and Steel Fabricators (supra) and Division Bench in the case of Albert David Ltd. (supra) and the conflicting decisions of the two Benches, we find that the limited issue is before us to decide as to whether there was any provision in the Rules for reversal of input credit taken and legally utilised, when the final product was dutiable, subsequently, becoming exempt.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 13 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. vs Cc And Ce on 24 June, 2003

He, submitted that it has been held by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Ashok Iron and Steel Fabricators, 2003 (87) ECC 668 (LB) : 2002 (140) ELT 277 that if at the time of receipt of the inputs and availment and utilization of the credit of the duty thereto the final products were dutiable which subsequently came to be exempt from duty, credit availed and utilized is not required to be reversed; that the present matter is factually identical to Ashok Iron and Steel case; that the Larger Bench under the said decision has followed the judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Premier Tyres Ltd., 2001 (130) ELT 417 (Ker). He therefore, contended that as the MODVAT credit has been taken by them validly at the time of receipt of inputs, it cannot be subsequently disallowed if the same is used in the manufacture of goods which are exempted subject to compliance of a specific conditions. He also contended that realization of 8% amount of sale value of clearance is by no means duty of excise and as such Section 11-A (1) and 11 AC of the Central Excise Act cannot be made applicable.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Sandoz Pvt. Ltd vs Belapur on 7 April, 2011

2. On behalf of the appellant, Shri Prakash Shah, learned advocate submitted that the issue is no longer res integra and relied upon the decisions of the Tribunal in the cases of Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry 2010 (251) 312 (Tri.-Chennai); GTN Exports Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore 2009 (240) ELT 53 (Tri.-Chennai) and Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot vs. Ashok Iron & Steel Fabricators 2002 (140) ELT 277 (Tri.- LB).
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Colgate-Palmolive(India) Limited vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise, & ... on 25 October, 2016

5. The fact that no accumulated credit was lying as on date of Tooth powder got exempted is not under dispute. The Departments contention is that the appellant is required to reverse the Cenvat credit in respect of input, finished goods and work in progress lying on the date of exemption notification i.e. 29-2-2000. The Cenvat credit was availed by the appellant during the period when the final product i.e. Tooth powder was dutiable therefore the availment of credit was legally permissible. No provision in the Cenvat credit rules existed which provides for reversal of credit which was legally availed in case of final product gets exempted after availing the credit. This issue is no more res integra particularly as per the judgments of five member larger bench of this Tribunal in case of Ashok Iron and Steel (supra) which was upheld by the Honble Supreme Court.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next