Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)
Super Smelters Pvt Ltd vs Bolpur Commissionerate on 24 September, 2025 cites

Commissioner Of Customs, Central ... vs M/S Raman Creative Enterprises on 22 January, 2018

4.2 The above judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported at Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat-III vs. Creative Enterprises 2009 (243) E.L.T. A120 (S.C.). There are many more judgments passed on this issue, which is directly on the issue in hand. According to which, even though the payment of duty is disputed, unless and until, any action for challenging the assessment of the supplier is taken, Cenvat Credit at the recipient end cannot be disputed, on the ground that the supplier was not supposed to pay duty, may be for various reasons that either the goods is not amount to manufacture, or exempted etc. 4.3 In view of the above legal position, we are of the clear view that the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly allowed the Cenvat credit on capital goods to the respondent. Hence, the order of the Learned Commissioner is absolutely legal and correct, which does not require any interference. Accordingly, the same is upheld."
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 1 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S Nestle India Ltd on 24 November, 2015

3. The short issue involved in the present appeal, as per the Appellant-Revenue, is whether CENVAT Credit on "Engraved Printing Cylinder" & "Copper Engraved Cylinder" can be denied to the Respondent-Assessee on the ground that such Cylinder were not liable to pay the excise duty although the supplier from whom the Respondent- Assessee has purchased these goods has wrongly paid the duty, since these goods were exempted and no duty was required to be paid by the supplier. 4. The Tribunal in paragraph 4 of its order has given a finding that there is no evidence on record that the payment of duty by the supplier was questioned / challenged / disputed by their jurisdictional officer and since the payment of duty by the supplier is found to be legal and correct, the Respondent- Assessee cannot be denied benefit of CENVAT credit. The learned counsel for the Appellant-Revenue has not challenged this finding of fact as incorrect. Therefore, on this very limited ground since these findings are not challenged and this being a finding of fact rendered by the final fact finding authority, in our view, no substantial questions of law can be said to arise from the impugned Tribunal's order. 5. Secondly, the Tribunal in the impugned order has followed the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Nestle India Ltd. 2012 (275) E.L.T. 49 (Bom.) and its own decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs Page 17 of 19 Appeal No(s).
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - R F Nariman - Full Document
1