Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)
M/S. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Ecc Const.Grp vs C.C.E, Hyderabad on 6 October, 2015 cites

Cce vs Associated Cement Company Ltd. on 18 July, 2003

(iv) Prior to March 01, 1996, this Court has upheld the position that ready mix concrete was classifiable under CH 68.07. (Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai[4]) upheld by this Court in CCE, Mumbai v. Associated Cement Co. Ltd.[5] All goods manufactured under this heading at the site for use in the construction at such site was all along exempt from duty. From March 01, 1997, ready mix concrete has been inserted in CH 38.2420. If ready mix concrete and concrete mix are two different things only ready mix concrete was not taken to CH 38. Therefore, concrete mix (manufactured at the site of construction) remained in CH 68.07 and was exempt under Notification No.4/97-CE (Serial No. 68.2). Even otherwise, serial no. 51 of this notification exempts concrete mix falling under CH 38, if manufactured at the site of construction.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 3 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

M/S. Larsen & Toubro Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 January, 2005

For this reason, CBEC in Circular dated January 06, 1998, has explained that by its very nature, ready mix concrete cannot be manufactured at site. This must be the logic on the basis of which, the Government counsel made a concession before the Hon'ble Madras High Court (Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. Union of India[2] that ready mix concrete manufactured at site is not taxable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 86 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... vs Simplex Infrastructure & Foundry Works on 23 April, 2013

In Simplex Infrastructures Limited case, this Court had not delved into the issue at hand at all except stating that, “if RMC is produced at site then alone the assessee is entitled to exemption under the requisite notification.” There is no discussion on this behalf as well. Though, para 3 starts with the words: 'As stated above', a reading of earlier paras reveals that in the preceding paras also there is no discussion on this aspect. It appears that the parties proceeded on the basis that if RMC is produced at site, it will be entitled to exemption. Otherwise there is no discussion that RMC is different from CM and the notification mentioned only approves CM and not RMC. Moreover, para 5 of the said judgment would disclose that after setting aside the order of the Tribunal and in an appeal filed by the Revenue, matter was remitted back to the Tribunal without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. Para 5 reads as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 8 - B D Ahmed - Full Document
1