Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.28 seconds)
Goodluck Engineering Company vs Ce & Cgst Noida on 30 May, 2024 cites

Commissioner Of Central Excise, Mumbai ... vs M/S Emco Ltd on 9 March, 2011

(i) The principle referred to in para 3 above would apply to all situations except where the contract for sale is FOR contract in the circumstances identical to the judgment in the case of CCE, Mumbai-III vs Emco Ltd 2015(322) ELT 394(SC) and CCE vs M/s Roofit Industries Ltd 2015(319) ELT 221(SC). To summarise, in the case of FOR destination sale such as M/s Emco Ltd and M/s Roofit Industries where the ownership, risk in transit, remained with the seller till goods are accepted by buyer on delivery and till such time of delivery, seller alone remained the owner of goods retaining right of disposal, benefit has been extended by the Apex Court on the basis of facts of the cases.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 1 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Custom And Central ... vs M/S Ultra Tech Cement Ltd on 28 October, 2020

5.CENVAT Credit on GTA Services etc: The other issue decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in relation to place of removal is in case of CCE &ST vs. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd dated 1.2.2018 in Civil Appeal No. 11261 of 2016 on the issue of CENVAT Credit on Goods Transport Agency Service availed for transport of goods from the 'place of removal' to the buyer's premises. The Apex Court has allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue and held that CENVAT Credit on Goods Transport Agency service availed for transport of goods from the place of removal to buyer's premises was not admissible for the relevant period. The Apex Court has observed that after amendment of in the definition of 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, effective from 01.03.2008, the service is treated as input service only 'up to the place of removal'.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

M/S.Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. Unit Vikram ... vs Cce, Indore on 16 September, 2016

(a) (Vide para-3): as a general principle, the decision laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. may be applied to the extent that 'place of removal' is required to be determined with reference to 'point of sale' with the condition that 'place of removal' is to be referred with reference to the premises of the manufacturer.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 5 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 Next