Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)
Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 17 May, 1995 cites

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

In this regard, the ld. DR relied on the ruling rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court as in the case of Good Year India Ltd. v. Collector of Customs -1990 (49) E.L.T. 39 and that of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prestige Engineering (India) Ltd. v. C.C.E. as reported in 1994 (4) R.L.T. 333. Arguing further, ld. DR submitted that Modvat credit is like a pool and it requires that so much of duty utilised is from such input only, thereby, there is emphasis of utilising the credit of duty paid on such input for the final product. By adopting this procedure of reversal of credit by the appellant, the very rules of Modvat are violated and is against its spirit.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 161 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Navsari Oil Products Ltd. vs Assistant Collector Of Central Excise on 4 December, 1991

He placed before us the ruling of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Navsari Oil Products Ltd. v. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, 1992 (60) E.L.T. 550 (Guj.) wherein it has been held that, if separate accounts are maintained then there is no question of credit being available, as such credit was not available at all. There has been no separate maintaining of account, and there is no one to one correlation and such reversal of duty is not of such input vised for manufacture of final product and therefore, the view taken by the Revenue is required to be confirmed. In this regard, ld. DR also relied on Board's letter dated 8-8-1988 (Circular No. 38/88), which support has been taken by lower authorities.
Gujarat High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 12 - J M Panchal - Full Document

Astra Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd vs C.C.E on 16 December, 1994

In view of this legal position as stated in the above ruling, we confirm the findings of the lower authorities. The E.R.B. in East India Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 1991 (54) E.L.T. 355 has taken a view that credit of duty from a certain quantity or lot of inputs can be utilised only for payment of duty for the final products manufactured from that lot and not for those manufactured from different lots, say previous lots. This has been held to bring the Modvat Scheme on a par with the set off procedure with its strict correlation between input and final product. It has also been held that Rule 57C lays down that no credit of duty will be permissible if the inputs are used in the manufacture of wholly exempted goods. It has been further held that, if a manufacturer has got unutilised inputs and also unutilised credits, the latter has to be disallowed if the final products become exempt. It has been held that there is no escape from that, in terms of Rule 57C.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 102 - R M Sahai - Full Document

Collector Of Central Excise Customs vs Premier Tyres Ltd. on 21 April, 1994

But in view of contrary judgment in the case of C.C.E., Bangalore v. Wipro Information Technology -1988 (33) E.L.T. 172 (Tribunal) and that of C.C.E., Cochin v. Premier Tyres Ltd. - 1992 (62) E.L.T. 104 (Tribunal), the matter had been referred to Larger Bench and the Larger Bench has already concluded the matter as reported in 1994 (73) E.L.T. 835. The relevant Paras 17.1, 17.2 and Para 18 are extracted herein below :
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 2 - Cited by 30 - Full Document

Food Corporation Of India vs Collector Of Customs on 13 February, 1992

In this regard, the ld. DR relied on the ruling rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court as in the case of Good Year India Ltd. v. Collector of Customs -1990 (49) E.L.T. 39 and that of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prestige Engineering (India) Ltd. v. C.C.E. as reported in 1994 (4) R.L.T. 333. Arguing further, ld. DR submitted that Modvat credit is like a pool and it requires that so much of duty utilised is from such input only, thereby, there is emphasis of utilising the credit of duty paid on such input for the final product. By adopting this procedure of reversal of credit by the appellant, the very rules of Modvat are violated and is against its spirit.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 8 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1