Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.24 seconds)
M/S Maihar Cement vs Cce, Bhopal on 17 June, 2010 cites

M/S. Birla Corporation Ltd vs Cce, Jaipur-Ii on 6 July, 2009

The short point which arises for consideration in the matter is, whether the benefit of modvat credit in relation to the duty paid on spares of OLBC & Crusher which are used for crushing the limestone and further for transportation from the mines to the factory, both having located at the distance of 6 Kms. in between is available or not. The similar issue had arisen in the matter of Birla Corporation Ltd., vs. CCE reported in 2005 (186) ELT 266 (S.C.)
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 1 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Commissioner Of C. Ex. vs Pepsico India Holding Ltd. on 7 June, 2000

5. In the instant case the same question arises for consideration and the facts are almost identical. We cannot permit the Revenue to take a different stand in this case. The earlier appeal involving identical issue was not pressed and was therefore, dismissed. The respondent having taken a conscious decision to accept the principles laid down in Pepsico India Holdings Ltd. (supra) cannot be permitted to take the opposite stand in this case. If we were to permit them to do so, the law will be in a state of confusion and will place the authorities as well as the assessees in a quandary.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1