Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)
Amod Stamping Pvt Ltd vs Vadodara-I on 10 August, 2022 cites

Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... vs Manohar Lal Hira Lal Ltd. (In Appeal No. ... on 11 November, 2016

1st Floor...Central Excise Building, Race Course Circle, Vadodara, Gujarat-390007 WITH i. Excise Appeal No. 13914 of 2014 (Amod Stamping Pvt Ltd) ii. Excise Appeal No. 13990 of 2014 (Tanmay S Patel) iii. Excise Appeal No. 13991 of 2014 (Malhotra Transport Co) iv. Excise Appeal No. 13992 of 2014 (Golden Logistics) v. Excise Appeal No. 13993 of 2014 (Bhari Golden) vi. Excise Appeal No. 11659 of 2016 (Amod Stamping Pvt Ltd) vii. Excise Appeal No. 11660 of 2016 (Amod Stamping Pvt Ltd) viii. Excise Appeal No. 11661 of 2016 (Amod Steel Processors) ix. Excise Appeal No. 11662 of 2016 (Shri Tanmay Patel) (Arising out of OIO-DMN-EXCUS-000-COM-008-16-17 dated 06/06/2016 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax-DAMAN) APPEARANCE:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 2 - Cited by 40 - Full Document

M/S Essar Steel India Limited vs Cce, Raipur on 27 September, 2016

- BANG)  VANDANA DYEING P. LTD. 2014(307) ELT 528 (TRI-MUMBAI)  ESSAR STEEL LTD. V. CCE, RAIPUR - 2016 (341) E.L.T. 145 (TRI.) 2.7 He finally argued that demands under both the cases negate each other. According to him, the demands are otherwise time-barred and the Credit must be allowed to Daman unit considering the fact that duty stands paid on finished goods by them, and the duty demand on Vadodara unit cannot be sustained since duty is already paid by Daman unit, and there cannot be duplication of duty demand as such. The various personal penalties are being contested as not being sustainable.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 3 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

M/S Zest Packers Pvt.Ltd vs Cce Ahmedabad-Ii on 22 July, 2015

and Mukesh industries Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad - 2009 (248) E.L.T. 203 (Tri.) were rendered considering Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 and 2002 Rules as parimateria to 57F(4) of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. However in our considered view Rule 57F(4) provided for payment of duty by the principal manufacturer whereas Rule 4(5)(a) only provides sending of Cenvat availed inputs for job work and return of same to the principal manufacturer implying that the principal manufacturer shall pay duty on the same. Accordingly those judgments are of no help to the appellant.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 15 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private ... vs Cce-Pune - Ii on 27 August, 2020

10 | P a g e E/13913-13914,13990-13993/2014 E/11659-11662/2016 7.14 The appellant also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of M/s. International Auto Ltd. v. CCE, Bihar - 2005 (183) E.L.T. 293 (S.C.). In the said case the dispute related to valuation of goods for the purpose of levy of duty at the job worker's end. The controversy was not related to liability of duty of job worker. It is undisputed in the present case that the principal manufacturer was not paying duty on removal of final products and had also not opted to avail the benefit of Notification No. 214/86-C.E. Hence the liability is on the manufacturer of intermediate product, i.e. job worker in the present case.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 49 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Central Excise Commissioner, Thane Ii vs M/S Dhana Singh Textile Pvt. Ltd on 14 July, 2014

 THERMAX BABCOCK & WILCOX LTD. 2018 (364) E.L.T. 945 (TRI. - LB)- PARA 7.5 TO 7.16  DHANA SINGH SYNTHETICS P. LTD. 2015 (326) E.L.T. 609 (TRI. - AHMD)  COMMISSIONER V. DHANA SINGH SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD. - 2016 (337) E.L.T. A140 (S.C.)  SANGHI INDUSTRIES LTD. 2014(302) ELT 564 (TRI-AHMD) - PARA 12 AND 13  HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. 2006 (206) E.L.T. 848 (TRI.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 5 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Sandvik Asia Pvt.Ltd. vs Cce Pune I on 1 October, 2018

7.16 Revenue has placed reliance upon the Tribunal judgment in case of M/s. Facit Asia Ltd. v. CCE - 1991 (54) E.L.T. 347 (Tri.). Tribunal was seized of the question as to whether the duty paid by the job worker is available to the principal manufacturer when the job worker could have availed exemption under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. The Tribunal rightly held that if the job worker has paid duty even though he was eligible to avail exemption under the Notification, the principal manufacturer was eligible for the credit thereof as he was liable to pay duty on clearance of the final goods. Tribunal held that had the Notification No. 214/86 not issued, even under Rule 57F(2) the job worker had to pay duty. Thus it follows that it is only by virtue of notification (supra) the goods manufactured at job workers end are exempted only if the same or the final product in which such intermediate goods are used are liable for duty at the end of the principal manufacturer which is absent in the present reference.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1