Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.27 seconds)Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 28 July, 2004
6. On the second issue, ld. Counsel refers to the judgement in the case of Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd. vs. UOI -2004 (174) ELT 422(All.) and Chandrapur Magnet Wires Pvt.Ltd. vs. CCE-1996 (81) ELT 3 (SC) and U.B.Engineering Ltd. vs.CCE-2014-TIOL-2527-CESTAT-MUM in support of her view that if the credit is specifically reversed, the benefit of notification should not be denied.
M/S. Amrit Paper vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 25 July, 2006
7. Learned AR reiterated the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals). On the second issue, he relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Paper vs. CCE, Ludhiana -2008 (12) STR 536 and Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. vs.CCE-2004 (171) ELT 296 (SC). In the first case, it was held that no credit of duty paid on inputs shall be allowed if the final product is exempted from the whole of duty of excise in terms of Notification No6/2000-CE and Rule 57C erstwhile of Central Excise Rules, 1994. In the second case, it was held that for availing the benefit under exemption notification, the conditions have to be strictly complied with.
Section 77 in The Finance Act, 2018 [Entire Act]
Section 78 in The Finance Act, 2018 [Entire Act]
The Finance Act, 2018
M/S. Pt-Education & Training Service ... vs Cce, Kanpur/Jaipur/Indore on 26 August, 2008
9. On the first issue, we find that the Maintenance and Repair service was introduced in the Finance Act, 1994 with effect from 1.7.2003. The facts on record and adjudication proceedings do not reveal as to when the service was rendered physically under the annual maintenance contract. The contracts were signed before 1.7.2003 and bills were raised prior to 1.7.2003. But actually services may have been rendered by them prior to and after 1.7.2003. No delineation of services rendered before 1.7.2003 and after 1.7.2003 has been made. During the arguments, it appeared that such categorization is not available in the records. On merits there appears to be no doubt the service rendered after 1.7.2003 will be leviable to service tax. However, relying on the case of PT Education and Training Services (Supra), we hold that as the issue relates to interpretation of provision of law, imposition of penalty and extended period of limitation are not warranted. Thus the demand alongwith interest and penalties are set aside on limitation.
1