Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.29 seconds)
Chandigarh Ii vs Ricela Health Foods Ltd on 16 January, 2026 cites

Ruchi Health Foods Ltd. vs Cce on 19 September, 2005

She also submits that the same position has also been further confirmed by the Tribunal in the Respondents' own case in Ricela Health Foods Ltd vs. CCE - [2020 (372) ELT 142 (Tri. Chan.)]. She also submits that in view of the settled position of law, the Tribunal and High Court in the following cases, have held that the products, generated during manufacture of final product, shall be exempted from payment of excise duty being "waste" under Notification No. 89/95-CE dated 18.05.1995:
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Customs & Central ... vs M/S. Nikhil Refineries Ltd on 18 July, 2011

5.1 She further submits that the department agitated the issue before the Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal in the case of CCE vs. Priyanka Refineries Ltd - [2010 (249) ELT 70 (Tribunal)] held that the soap stock arising during manufacture of refined edible oil is considered to be "waste" and not a "by-product", hence, is exempted under Notification No. 89/95-CE dated 18.05.1995. She further submits that the said decision of the Tribunal was affirmed by the 6 E/52851/2015 with E/50446/2015 & E/52852/2015 with E/50364/2015 Hon'ble Apex Court vide its Order dated 07.01.2010 reported as - 2011 (274) ELT A16 (SC).
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 10 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Maheswari Solvent Extraction Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nagpur on 4 October, 2010

5.3 She further submits that Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Maheshwari Solvent Extraction Ltd vs. CCE, Nagpur - [2014 (299) ELT 116 (Tri. Mumbai)] took a contrary view and held that Fatty Acids, Waxes & Gums, emerging in course of refining of crude vegetable oil, are in the nature of "waste" and would be eligible for exemption under Notification No. 89/95-CE dated 18.05.1995.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 1 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

M/S Oswal Woolen Mills Ltd vs Cce, Ludhiana on 2 May, 2012

 Commr of CGST, Chennai Outer vs. D. Ramamurthy, SSD Oil Mills Company Ltd - [2021 (12) TMI 478 Madras High Court]  M/s Raj Agro Mills Ltd vs. CCE, Ludhiana - [2025 (6) TMI 427 CESTAT Chandigarh] 8 E/52851/2015 with E/50446/2015 & E/52852/2015 with E/50364/2015  M/s Dhillon Oil & Fats Pvt Ltd, M/s Tara Health Foods Limited vs. CCE, Chandigarh-II - [2023 (12) TMI 1445 CESTAT Chandigarh]  M/s Kissan Fats Ltd, M/s BCL Industries & Infrastructure Ltd, M/s Sangrur Agro Ltd vs. CCE, Chandigarh-II - [2023 (9) TMI 914 CESTAT Chandigarh]  CCE, Ludhiana vs. Shree Jindal Proteins Ltd, M/s Sangrur Agro Ltd - [2018 (3) TMI 915 CESTAT Chandigarh] 5.6 She also submits that the impugned products are exempted from levy of excise duty under the Notification No. 89/95-CE dated 18.05.1995. Further, she also submits that it is not disputed that the Respondents are not intending to specifically manufacture the said products, however, the same get generated during the process of manufacture of the final product. Further, she also submits that the said products are not by-products of the final product, rather they are "waste" generated during refining process of the final product as held in the above cited decisions.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 2 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs Commissioner Of Gst&Amp;Cce(Chennai ... on 10 December, 2018

 M/s Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd vs. CCE, Chandigarh - [2025 (2) TMI 255 CESTAT Chandigarh]  M/s Gillette India Ltd vs. CCE, Chandigarh - [2023 (11) TMI 154 CESTAT Chandigarh]  M/s Tejas Network Ltd vs. CCE, Bangalore - [2023 (7) TMI 778 CESTAT Bangalore]  M/s Indian Oil Corp Ltd vs. CCE & ST - [2019 (370) ELT 487 (Tri. Ahmd.)]
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next