Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.22 seconds)
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Interfit Techno P. Ltd. on 23 May, 2003 cites

India Pistons Limited vs Assistant Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 23 September, 1986

In this connection Ld. Counsel relied on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the matter of India Pistons Ltd. v. ACC, Madras, 2000 (117) ELT 545 (Mad) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that the facilities earlier granted by the Assistant Commissioner cannot be reduced or reversed by the same authority and such withdrawal was without jurisdiction and the department should have been filed petition, if they were aggrieved by order of the Assistant Commissioner.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 13 - S Mohan - Full Document

Hindustan Motors Ltd. vs Cce on 22 January, 2002

In this connection Ld. Counsel relied on the decisions rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Motors v. CCE, 2993 (63) ELT 723 and Leader Engg. v. CCE, 1993 (63) ELT 687, He further submitted that these machines have been installed in the factory and the final products have suffered duty and all these capital goods are covered by Larger Bench decision rendered in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Coimbatore, 1999 (108) ELT 47 (T) confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CCE, Coimbatore v. Jawahar Mills Ltd., 2001 (77) ECC1 (SC) : 2000 (132) ELT 3 (SC).
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 44 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

M/S. Sri Kannapiran Mills Ltd. vs C.C.E. Coimbatore on 15 May, 2001

8. I have carefully gone through the submissions made by both sides and find that on the capital goods for which the declaration was filed under Rule 57T after a period of 3 months of the receipt of the capital goods, Modvat credit cannot be permitted inasmuch as the Assistant Commissioner neither had the power to condone the delay beyond the period of three months under Rule 57T nor had he condoned the delay, as pleaded by the Counsel inasmuch as the Assistant Commissioner in para 3 of his letter C. No. IV/16/306/94 Part I dt. 29,11.94 has ordered that the delay in filing the said declaration is condoned in terms of Rule 57T of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, in other words whatever delay was condonable within his power, he had condoned the same and instructed the range officer to issue a show cause notice for the ineligible capital goods as listed out in para 2 of the letter and report compliance. Reading para 2 of their letter dt. 27.9.94 would indicate that they have blamed their executive staff who were incharge and looked after the excise matter about the delay as they were under the bona fide belief that the intimation regarding capital goods for availing modvat credit has to be given when the factory commences afresh. Therefore, they had requested the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore to condone the delay in filing the declaration. Therefore, it would be evident that the Assistant Commissioner never exercised his authority of condoning the delay beyond the statutory powers vested in Rule 57T of the CE Rules, 1944. Besides he instructed the range officer to issue a show cause notice for the ineligible capital goods as listed out in para 2 of their letter and to report compliance. As regards the review under Section 35E of the CEA Act, 1944 is concerned, there was no ambiguity in the mind of the Department of Revenue about the exercise of the power under Rule 57T by the Assistant Commissioner. Since the Assistant Commissioner has not condoned the delay beyond the statutory period of three months, therefore, the judgment cited by them in the matter of Jawahar Mills Ltd. (supra) is clearly distinguishable and these judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the above position I modify the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by disallowing the Modvat credit of Rs. 2,83,657.50 on capital goods for which declaration was given after expiry of the statutory period of three months. As regard the modvat credit of Rs. 53,671.23 pertaining to condenser, gas compressor, wax reclamation unit which are used in the manufacture of wax moulds/ceramic moulds since the final products i.e. stainless steel castings suffered duty, modvat credit cannot be denied on the ground of exemption of the intermediate products. Therefore, the duty amount of Rs. 85,933.63 allowed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is legal and proper and his order to that extent is also confirmed. Subject to the above modification the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed. Ordered accordingly.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 15 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central ... vs Jawahar Mills Ltd. & Ors on 27 July, 2001

In this connection Ld. Counsel relied on the decisions rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Motors v. CCE, 2993 (63) ELT 723 and Leader Engg. v. CCE, 1993 (63) ELT 687, He further submitted that these machines have been installed in the factory and the final products have suffered duty and all these capital goods are covered by Larger Bench decision rendered in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Coimbatore, 1999 (108) ELT 47 (T) confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CCE, Coimbatore v. Jawahar Mills Ltd., 2001 (77) ECC1 (SC) : 2000 (132) ELT 3 (SC).
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 230 - S P Bharucha - Full Document
1