Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (1.13 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S Nestle India Ltd on 24 November, 2015

Javed Iqbal And Ors. vs State Thr. P/S Mendhar on 26 July, 2017

182, Harpal Singh alias Chhota vs. State of Punjab, (2017) 1 SCC 734, E Subbulakshmi vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2017) 1 SCC 757, Ram Chander and other vs. State of Haryana (2017) 2 SCC 321, Board of Control for Cricket in India vs. Cricket Association of Bihar and other (2017) 2 SCC 333, M.G. Eshwarappa and others vs. State of Karnataka, (2017) 2 SCC 558, Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Nestle India ltd. (2015) 17 SCC 569 Paui Meli and anr. vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2014) 13 SCC 90, Anwarul Haq vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2005 SC 2381 and Kamta Yadav and others. Vs. State of Bihar (2016) 16 SCC 164.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Super Smelters Pvt Ltd vs Bolpur Commissionerate on 24 September, 2025

3. The short issue involved in the present appeal, as per the Appellant-Revenue, is whether CENVAT Credit on "Engraved Printing Cylinder" & "Copper Engraved Cylinder" can be denied to the Respondent-Assessee on the ground that such Cylinder were not liable to pay the excise duty although the supplier from whom the Respondent- Assessee has purchased these goods has wrongly paid the duty, since these goods were exempted and no duty was required to be paid by the supplier. 4. The Tribunal in paragraph 4 of its order has given a finding that there is no evidence on record that the payment of duty by the supplier was questioned / challenged / disputed by their jurisdictional officer and since the payment of duty by the supplier is found to be legal and correct, the Respondent- Assessee cannot be denied benefit of CENVAT credit. The learned counsel for the Appellant-Revenue has not challenged this finding of fact as incorrect. Therefore, on this very limited ground since these findings are not challenged and this being a finding of fact rendered by the final fact finding authority, in our view, no substantial questions of law can be said to arise from the impugned Tribunal's order. 5. Secondly, the Tribunal in the impugned order has followed the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Nestle India Ltd. 2012 (275) E.L.T. 49 (Bom.) and its own decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs Page 17 of 19 Appeal No(s).
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Super Smelters Pvt Ltd vs Bolpur Commissionerate on 24 September, 2025

3. The short issue involved in the present appeal, as per the Appellant-Revenue, is whether CENVAT Credit on "Engraved Printing Cylinder" & "Copper Engraved Cylinder" can be denied to the Respondent-Assessee on the ground that such Cylinder were not liable to pay the excise duty although the supplier from whom the Respondent- Assessee has purchased these goods has wrongly paid the duty, since these goods were exempted and no duty was required to be paid by the supplier. 4. The Tribunal in paragraph 4 of its order has given a finding that there is no evidence on record that the payment of duty by the supplier was questioned / challenged / disputed by their jurisdictional officer and since the payment of duty by the supplier is found to be legal and correct, the Respondent- Assessee cannot be denied benefit of CENVAT credit. The learned counsel for the Appellant-Revenue has not challenged this finding of fact as incorrect. Therefore, on this very limited ground since these findings are not challenged and this being a finding of fact rendered by the final fact finding authority, in our view, no substantial questions of law can be said to arise from the impugned Tribunal's order. 5. Secondly, the Tribunal in the impugned order has followed the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Nestle India Ltd. 2012 (275) E.L.T. 49 (Bom.) and its own decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs Page 17 of 19 Appeal No(s).
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Super Smelters Ltd vs Bolpur Commissionerate on 24 September, 2025

3. The short issue involved in the present appeal, as per the Appellant-Revenue, is whether CENVAT Credit on "Engraved Printing Cylinder" & "Copper Engraved Cylinder" can be denied to the Respondent-Assessee on the ground that such Cylinder were not liable to pay the excise duty although the supplier from whom the Respondent- Assessee has purchased these goods has wrongly paid the duty, since these goods were exempted and no duty was required to be paid by the supplier. 4. The Tribunal in paragraph 4 of its order has given a finding that there is no evidence on record that the payment of duty by the supplier was questioned / challenged / disputed by their jurisdictional officer and since the payment of duty by the supplier is found to be legal and correct, the Respondent- Assessee cannot be denied benefit of CENVAT credit. The learned counsel for the Appellant-Revenue has not challenged this finding of fact as incorrect. Therefore, on this very limited ground since these findings are not challenged and this being a finding of fact rendered by the final fact finding authority, in our view, no substantial questions of law can be said to arise from the impugned Tribunal's order. 5. Secondly, the Tribunal in the impugned order has followed the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Nestle India Ltd. 2012 (275) E.L.T. 49 (Bom.) and its own decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs Page 17 of 19 Appeal No(s).
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next