Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.26 seconds)
Dredging Corporation Of India vs Visakhapatnam - G S T on 10 October, 2025 cites

Dish Tv India Ltd. At Essel House, B-10 vs Assistant Commissioner Of Cgst Noida ... on 22 July, 2020

Therefore, in an event where the dumpers and tippers are treated as capital goods, the same would not be treated as input for providing output service, but will still be covered within the definition of capital goods. Therefore, we find that the argument taken by the Revenue that the scope is to inprete the expression capital goods differently for the purpose of Rule 2(a) and for the purpose of Rule 2(k) is not in sync with the scheme of CCR, which is a special code by itself and even if the context has to be analysed in which these definitions are to be interpreted differently, it has to be looked beyond the CCR or for that matter beyond the parent act i.e Central Excise Act and Finance Act 1994, under which CCR has been formulated. Since the term capital goods has not been defined under CEA, therefore, it has to be understood in terms of CCR itself. We find force in the submission of the assesse and supported by the judgments in the case of Dish TV India Ltd., supra, to hold a view that what is not to be treated as capital good under Rule 2(a) can also not be treated as capital good for the purpose of Rule 2(k) because if we do so, it will lead to an absurd situation where, we are not considering dredger as capital good for the Cenvat Credit purpose, whereas, we are treating it as a capital good for the purpose of exclusion under Rule 2(k). A good can be a capital good or an input on strict construction of definition used in the statute and that is why expression such as "unless the context otherwise required" are used to interpret the same in a manner which does not lead to an absurd situation. In the present appeals, we find that a consistant view has to be taken and in terms of the same, the expression capital goods used in Rule 2(k) has to be understood in terms of definition of capital goods used under Rule 2(a). We also find force in the submission that the definition of a particular goods under a different statute cannot become the basis for deciding an issue (16) Appeal No. ST/30201 & 30206/2016 under a different statute, especially when the term has been clearly defined within the statute, under which it is being examined for the purpose of eligibility or otherwise. Therefore, we find that even taking into the context in which these two terms are to be examined, we do not see any reason as to why the term capital goods used under Rule 2(k) has to be interpreted differently than the definition of capital goods given under Rule 2(a) for the purpose of eligibility or otherwise under CCR. In view of the same, we do not find any merit in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner and the same is liable to be set aside.
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Prestige Engineering(India) Ltd vs C.C.E on 1 September, 1994

He has also relied on Hon'ble Supreme Court decision of Prestige Engg (India) Ltd., Vs CCE [1994 (73) ELT 497 (SC)], wherein, the term 'manufacture', the Court held that once an expression is defined in the Act, that expression wherever it occurs in the Act, Rules or Notifications issued thereunder, should be understood in the same sense. As per the appellant, the term manufacture is defined in the (5) Appeal No. ST/30201 & 30206/2016 statute, recourse cannot be made to the ordinary meaning of the term.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 161 - B P Reddy - Full Document
1   2 3 Next