Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.17 seconds)
Hero Cycles Ltd. And Essar Steel Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 3 December, 2002 cites

Eveready Industries India Ltd. vs Cce on 6 January, 1999

Similar views were expressed by the Tribunal in the case of Eveready Industries case. In the case of Universal Cables, the manufacturers of the final products issued debit notes to the suppliers of PVC compound as it was not in accordance with the specifications. The Department contended that the Respondent should not be allowed credit of duty on that part of the assessable value for which debit notes had been issued. The Tribunal did not agree with the Revenue and held that as there is no change in the duty paid by the manufacturer of input, "Credit of duty taken by the respondents herein cannot be varied."
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 4 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Thermon Heat Tracers Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Pune on 1 June, 2001

5. Countering the arguments, Shri Rajeev Tondon, learned SDR, submitted that inspite of the contract, the goods were cleared by the Appellant No. 2 at inflated price which reflects commercial accommodation; that though subsequently the basic price was restored to the contracted price by way of issue of debit notes the corresponding corrections were not carried out in the amount of input credit; that the correct procedure should have been taking recourse to claim refund of the duty paid in excess by the Appellant No, 2. He relied upon the decision in Thermon Heat Tracers Ltd. v. CCE, Pune, 2001 (132) ELT 455 (T) and CCE Jaipur II v. Adarsh Guar Gram Udyog, 2000 (120) ELT 138 (T),
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 3 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Telco Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 8 December, 1999

The ratio of those decisions is squarely applicable to the present matter before us. The ratio of the decision in TELCO case, relied upon by the Adjudicating Authority is not applicable as in that matter the inputs were reassessed at the suppliers end. The Appellant No. 1 is eligible to take the credit of the duty specified in the duty paying document under which the inputs were received. Accordingly we set aside the impugned orders and allow both the appeals. This also disposes of the stay application filed by M/s. Essar Steel Ltd.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 0 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Haryana State Electronics Dev. Corpn. vs Cce on 5 October, 1998

6. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. It has not been disputed by the Revenue that the Appellant No, 2 cleared H.R. Coils on payment of duty and the Appellant No. 1 had availed of MODVAT Credit of the duty actually paid by the supplier and mentioned in the duty paying documents, The Revenue has also not disputed the fact that the duty paid in excess on account of finaiization of price between both the Appellants has not been claimed as refund by the Appellant No. 2. Nothing has also been brought on record by Revenue to show that the assessments were reopened at the supplier's end that is Appellant No. 2. It has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Kerala State Electronic Corporation v. CCE, Kochi, 1996 (14) RLT 129 (CEGAT) that MODVAT Scheme "does not confer any power on the Authority having jurisdiction over a manufacturing unit to reassess duty on the inputs received for the purpose of MODVAT credit, Even in cases there is any short or excess collection of duty on the inputs, the assesses are entitled to credit as specified in the duty paying documents. If the duty paid on the inputs is found to be short or in excess what is payable under the law the resort can be had at the suppliers end.... The Legislature visualized this situation....and to take care of such a situation, they therefore provided a separate mechanism to ensure that MODVAT Credit is equal to the duty paid by providing for variation of credit under Rule 57 E."
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 0 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1