Suryalata Spinning Mills Ltd. vs Commr. Of C. Ex. on 17 March, 1999
(ii) With respect to Stabilizer, we again find that applying the ratio of Shanti Synthetics Ltd. supra, the Modvat credit would be available under Rule 57Q in this case.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)Documents citing
C.C.E. vs New Gujarat Synthetics Ltd. on 30 August, 1995
Commissioner Of Customs vs Hotline Cpt Ltd. on 7 October, 2004
Rather they accepted it and paid the interest along with the duty as assessed on their Bills of Entries at the time of the clearance of the goods without any objection. They never disputed their liability to pay the interest on the ground that the amended provisions of Section 61 were not applicable to them. They have not placed on record the bond executed by them at the time of warehousing the goods. The ratio of law laid down in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (supra) is not attracted to the case of the respondents. In that case, the bonding period on account of amendment in Section 61 of the Customs Act made on 13-5-83 was reduced but an undertaking was given by the importer to pay the interest at the time of the clearance of the goods and that undertaking was sought to be enforced for claiming interest but the Tribunal did not allow the same by observing that the pre-amended law as in force will apply.
Vardhman Spg. And Gen. Mills Ltd. vs Commr. Of C. Ex. on 3 November, 1999
Reliance was also placed on the Tribunal decision in CCE v. Shivagurunathan Synthetics Ltd. 1998 (104) E.L.T. 657 in which the Tribunal upheld the findings of the Commissioner to the effect that in terms of Section 2(e) of Central Excise Act, a factory comes into existence only on its obtaining registration under the Central Excise Rules.
Samcar Glass Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 14 December, 2000
(1) CCE, Vadodara v. Steeko Gujarat Ltd. - 2000 (121) E.L.T. 557 (Tribunal)
(2) CCE, Ahmedabad-I v. Omkar Textile Mills Limited - 2000 (122) E.L.T. 115 (Tribunal)
(3) Alpha Drug India Ltd. v. CCE, Ouindigarh - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 783 (Tribunal)
(4) J.K. Synthetics Limited v. CCE, Jaipur -1996 (87) E.L.T. 389
(5) Reliance Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Bombay - 1995 (78) E.L.T. 595 (Tribunal)
Pasupati Spg. And Wvg. Mills Ltd. vs Cce on 28 September, 2006
4. On the contrary, the Revenue pointed out that in some cases particular appellant's own case, the Tribunal has taken a different view and the appeal filed by the appellants were dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as 2006 (198) E.L.T. 168. The Revenue also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. New Gujarat Synthetics Ltd. , which is in favour of the Revenue.
Cce, Jaipur vs M/S. Rishabh Dev Textitles on 16 February, 2001
3. The Appellate Tribunal under Order No. A/29498-NB has allowed capital goods credit in respect of Voltage Stabilise/Voltage Regulator under Rule 57Q following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE Jaipur Vs. Shjanti Synthetics 1997 (20) RLT 689(CEGAT). It has been mentioned in the reference application that the definition of capital goods as given in Explanation to Rule 57Q does not cover the impugned good as these are not used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about change in any substances for the manufacture of final products.
Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills vs Commr. Of C. Ex. on 9 June, 1998
3. In both the appeals first issue for consideration is whether caustic soda flakes used for descaling of brass tubes, are admissible input under Rule 52A or not. Before the Assistant Commissioner, the judgment of the Tribunal was cited wherein CEGAT had permitted caustic soda used as an input. The Assistant Commissioner observed that the case had no-precedence for the facts before him. The appellants before me placed reliance on Tribunal's judgment in the case of C.C.E. v. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. reported in 1998 (98) E.L.T. 507 (Tribunal) where the single Member permitted descaling compound used for air conditioning system as admissible inputs. The inputs in the present case, being on similar lines, do qualify Rule 57A. To this extent, impugned order, which upholds the Assistant Commissioner's order, is required to be set aside.
Collector Of C. Ex. vs Bhilwara Spinners Ltd on 21 July, 1998
This decision was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal while deciding the case of CCE, Ahmedabad v. New Gujarat Synthetics Ltd. reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 727 relied upon by the DR in which it was held that the production of spun yarn itself establishes that the non-cellulosic waste had been made fit for mixing/blending with other fibres and that no yarn could be made directly out of waste.
Collector Of C. Ex. vs Aggarwal Steel Industries on 27 September, 1996
In the case of CCE v. Sancheti Synthetics (P) Ltd. - 1990 (48) E.L.T. 578 (T) the Tribunal had observed that stainless steel patties in question are of irregular shape as well as uneven thickness and the products are neither in coil nor in flattened from. Thus the goods do not justify the definition of 'strip' and are to be rightly classified under sub-item (8) of Item 25 of Central Excise Tariff (old).
M/S. C.G. Glass Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... on 20 April, 2001
4. Citation is made of a Tribunal order in the use of CCE vs. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. 2000 (115) ELT 787 where certain irregularities in the invoices issued by public sector corporation have been held not to be against substantive benefit. The Tribunal in the present case termed the infraction as "a mere procedural irregularity". With great respect to the learned single member, I observe that the lapse here is not of a mere procedural irregularity. The language of the rule is such as to deny the benefit if its dectates are not followed.