Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)
El Forge Limited vs Cce on 11 June, 2004 cites

Cce vs Sail on 27 July, 2001

In the case of CCE v. SAIL, 1991 (31) ECC 192 (T) : 1990 (47) ELT 389 (Tri), relied upon by them, there was payment of duty at the time of clearance of the goods and the dispute was about the eligibility of Modvat Credit in respect of payment of duty subsequent to the original payment of duty. Similar was the facts involved in the case of CCE & C, Bhubaneswar, 2001 (129) ELT 641 where there was payment of duty initially and payment of differential duty subsequently.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 1 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Pam Instruments Pvt. Ltd. vs Cce on 31 May, 2002

In the case of PAM Instruments Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi-II, 2002 (148) ELT 944, appeal filed by the assessee therein was rejected since the assessee did not follow the procedure laid down under Chapter X. However, the assessee was given the liberty to obtain certificate in terms of Rule 57E because duty was paid on the input. It would, therefore, be seen that the facts in the present case are not similar to the facts in the cases cited by the appellants. Therefore, the case laws cited do not come to the rescue of the appellants. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the lower appellate authority. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Dura Magnets Pvt. Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise And Customs on 15 October, 1992

In the case of Durga Magnets Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE & C, 1992 (40) ECC 461 (T) : 1993 (64) ELT 342, the assessee therein had cleared one consignment by paying countervailing duty at 15% ad valorem and in respect of another consignment no countervailing duty was paid and after a period of one year there was a demand for payment of countervailing duty by the department and which demand was honoured by the assessee.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Sail, Bokaro Steel Plant on 22 March, 2004

In the case of CCE v. SAIL, Rourkela Steel Plant, 1990 (30) ECC 114 (T) : 1990 (47) ELT 394, there was a claim by the assessee for benefit of Modvat Credit on account of escalation of value of the inputs. Since the claim was not accompanied by any documents prescribed, the benefit of Modvat Credit for the escalated price was not allowed and it was in those circumstances, the Tribunal rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1