cites: 116293057

M/S Vikram Cement vs Cce, Indore on 24 July, 2009

The impugned order, therefore, based upon the overruled judgment of CCE (supra) required to be set aside on this ground also as this case goes to the root of reasoning given by the learned Authority while rejecting the claim of the Appellant.

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 25 - Cited by 124 - Full Document

M/S Jaiprakash Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 22 November, 2002

 Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of CE, Chandigarh, 2002(146)ELT 481 (SC)  Gopal Zarda Udyog Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi -

Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 53 - S N Variava - Full Document

M/S Gopal Zarda Udyog Etc vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise,New ... on 30 September, 2005

 Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of CE, Chandigarh, 2002(146)ELT 481 (SC)  Gopal Zarda Udyog Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi -

Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

M/S. Kamrup Industrial Gases (P) ... vs Cce, Allahabad on 28 May, 2001

While the department relying upon Larger Bench's judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Vikas Industrial Gas v. CCE, Allahabad (supra) pleads that the captive power plant located far-away from the factory cannot be treated as part of the factory and inputs and capital goods used therein would not be eligible for Cenvat credit, the appellant rely upon the two judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Vikram Cement v. CCE, Indore reported in 2006 (194) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) and 2006 (197) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.).

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 1 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise, Jaipur vs M/S. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd on 3 September, 2004

6.1 In this judgment, the Apex Court over-ruled its earlier judgment in the case of CCE v. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. - 2004 (171) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.).

Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 61 - G P Mathur - Full Document

M/S. Madras Cements Ltd vs Cce, Hyderabad on 19 January, 2016

Same view has been taken by the Apex Court in case of Madras Cements Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2010 (257) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.).

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 4 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

State Of U.P. And Ors vs Renusagar Power Co. And Others on 28 July, 1988

6.4 We also find that the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Renusagar Power Company reported in 1988 (4) SCC 59 has held that Renusagar Power Plant had no separate and independent existence apart from and independent of Hindalco (the appellant) and therefore the Renusagar Power Plant has to be treated as captive power plant of Hindalco.

Supreme Court of India Cites 56 - Cited by 351 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Commnr. Of Central Excise & Ors vs M/S. Solaris Chemtech Limited & Ors on 24 July, 2007

7. However, since, admittedly, some quantity of electricity generated is used in the township and is not used in the factory of the appellant company for manufacture of excisable goods, to that extent, the input duty credit would not be admissible in view of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CCE v. Solaris Chemtech Ltd. [2007 (214) E.LT. 481 (S.C.)). However, for determining the quantum of input duty credit, which would be inadmissible on this ground, the matter would have to be remanded to the original Adjudicating Authority.

Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

Madras Cements Ltd vs Commr.Of Central Excise on 6 May, 2010

16. We have to consider the technology and machinery which are available for bringing the raw material for final product/produce. This may be of any nature, including transportation and/or such other mechanism. SPM system as noted, is regularly used for supply of so-called raw material which ultimately, leads to the factory and products are finally processed and produced that resulted into final products. We are inclined to observe that SPM system in question for the reason so recorded falls within the ambit of "capital goods" in the form of components, spares and accessories as reiterated in Madras Cements v. Commissioner of Central Excise (supra).

Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 26 - A Kabir - Full Document

Saraswati Sugar Mills vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, Delhi-Iii on 2 August, 2011

17. The appellants, in the present case, is not claiming that items used in making those SPM system to manufacture it. The scheme is that SPM system and its integrated part which is on going mechanism supported by the spares and accessories. Therefore, the Supreme Court judgment in Saraswati Sugar Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III - (2014) 15 SCC 625, cannot be extended to deny the claim of the appellants. The case of M/s. Bharati Airtel Limited is also not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case, as in the present case actual SPM system is in use and required to be used for specific purpose so referred above. This is keeping in mind, the nature of business and final product produced/processed after obtaining this raw material through SPM system.

Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 162 - H L Dattu - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results