Popular Paints &Amp; Chemicals vs Raipur on 6 August, 2018
E/52738-52740-52741/2016(DB)
15.5. That similar law has been laid down by the Gujarat High Court and this Tribunal in the
following cases.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (7.93 seconds)Documents citing
M/S. Ipca Laboratories Ltd vs C.C.E Indore on 6 May, 2015
Bihar Foundary &Amp; Casting Ltd vs Ranchi on 9 August, 2019
15.5. That similar law has been laid down by the Gujarat High
Court and this Tribunal in the following cases.
Aurobindo Pharma Limited vs Hyderabad-Iii on 9 September, 2020
He has further submitted that the appellant has paid Service Tax
on service charges paid to the said overseas service provider
since 1.6.2007 under the category of 'Management or Business
Consultant' when the scope of management consultancy service
was expanded to include business consultancy. Accordingly, the
Service Tax for the period 2007-08 and 2008-09 was paid with
applicable interest on 22.2.2009 and thereafter from 2009-10
onwards the appellant paid Service Tax on monthly basis under
reverse charge mechanism. The appellant in the present case
disputes the demand of Service Tax on the payments made to
the overseas service provider during the period 2006-07 only.
On the issue of classification of services rendered by M/s Dada
Consultancyand M/s Pharphe Dr. D.R. Iban, the learned
Advocate referred to the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of
Kumud Drugs Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2015-TIOL-2141-CESTAT-
MUM, CCE, Kolhapur Vs. Kumud Drugs Pvt. Ltd. 2019 (22) GSTL
6
280 (Tri-Mum),and Ipca Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CCE 2019(21) ELT
502(Tri.-Mum).
M/S. Hydac (India) Pvt.Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 23 June, 2015
(C) 2015-TIOL-1097-CESTAT-DEL
M/s IPCA LABORATORIES LTD
Vs
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE
Principal Commissioner Of Gst& Central ... vs Annur Cotton Mills on 26 June, 2023
- CESTAT Allahabad dated 05.03.2018 and also in the
case of CCE Vs M/s. EID Parry India Limited - 2018 (8)
TMI 1494 - CESTAT dated 05.06.2018 Chennai, it was
held that demand on the semi-finished goods and work in
progress goods is not sustainable because the finished
goods have not yet come into existence. Similar view was
taken in the case of CCE, LTU Vs Lupin Ltd -2019 (2) TMI
937 IPCA Laboratories Ltd Vs. CCE - 2022(11) TMI 336-
CESTAT dated 04.11.2022, 42/2001-CE (NT) dated
26.06.2001, 43/2001-CE(NT) 26.06.2001 and 19/2004-
CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004.
Annur Cotton Mills vs Coimbatore on 26 June, 2023
- CESTAT Allahabad dated 05.03.2018 and also in the
case of CCE Vs M/s. EID Parry India Limited - 2018 (8)
TMI 1494 - CESTAT dated 05.06.2018 Chennai, it was
held that demand on the semi-finished goods and work in
progress goods is not sustainable because the finished
goods have not yet come into existence. Similar view was
taken in the case of CCE, LTU Vs Lupin Ltd -2019 (2) TMI
937 IPCA Laboratories Ltd Vs. CCE - 2022(11) TMI 336-
CESTAT dated 04.11.2022, 42/2001-CE (NT) dated
26.06.2001, 43/2001-CE(NT) 26.06.2001 and 19/2004-
CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004.
Annur Cotton Mills vs Coimbatore on 26 June, 2023
- CESTAT Allahabad dated 05.03.2018 and also in the
case of CCE Vs M/s. EID Parry India Limited - 2018 (8)
TMI 1494 - CESTAT dated 05.06.2018 Chennai, it was
held that demand on the semi-finished goods and work in
progress goods is not sustainable because the finished
goods have not yet come into existence. Similar view was
taken in the case of CCE, LTU Vs Lupin Ltd -2019 (2) TMI
937 IPCA Laboratories Ltd Vs. CCE - 2022(11) TMI 336-
CESTAT dated 04.11.2022, 42/2001-CE (NT) dated
26.06.2001, 43/2001-CE(NT) 26.06.2001 and 19/2004-
CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004.
Signal And Systems India Pvt Ltd vs Chennai- on 13 December, 2024
23. Our aforesaid view also stands bolstered by the earlier
decisions of this tribunal in Modern Laboratories v CCE, Indore,
reported in [2017(358) ELT 1179] and CCE, Chennai v
17
Dynaspede Integrated Systems Ltd, reported in [2002
(147) ELT 541 (Tri-Chennai)].
Signal And Systems India Pvt Ltd vs Chennai- on 13 December, 2024
23. Our aforesaid view also stands bolstered by the earlier
decisions of this tribunal in Modern Laboratories v CCE, Indore,
reported in [2017(358) ELT 1179] and CCE, Chennai v
17
Dynaspede Integrated Systems Ltd, reported in [2002
(147) ELT 541 (Tri-Chennai)].
Shri Rajesh Kumar Rajuka Managing ... vs Rourkela Commissionerate on 4 April, 2025
computer printouts were taken after conclusion of
panchnama proceedings. In majority of the printouts
the time is after 6 p.m. i.e. after conclusion of
panchnama proceedings. Moreover, the 'computer
printout' was not directly generated from any
computer owned, operated, or used by the
Appellants. Instead, it was allegedly printed from a
computer used by the DGCEI officers after the
conclusion of the search proceedings, with no
verification of the source or authenticity of the data.
Thus, the same cannot be relied upon. Reference in
this regard has been invited to the judgment of the
Tribunal in the case of Modern Laboratories vs.
CCE, Indore [2017 (358) ELT 1179 (Tri. -
Del.)].