Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.21 seconds)
Ashwin Vanaspati Inds. (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Collr. Of C. Ex. And Cus. on 2 December, 1993 cites

Collector Of Central Excise vs Indo Swing Ltd. on 13 August, 1991

The view expressed by the South Regional Bench, in Collector v. Indo Swing Ltd. (supra) being the one principally based on the view expressed in Re: Ponds (India) Ltd., also virtually remains to be not a correct view, and can now not be considered as a conflicting with the view expressed by the West Regional Bench. The position that therefore, emerges out is that there are concurrent views expressed by the East Regional Bench and West Regional Bench, and the same have been endorsed as correct view by the Madras High Court, and the anomalous situation created because of conflicting views, has ceased to exist.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Rasoi Vanaspati Industries Ltd. vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 30 March, 1989

24. The East Regional Bench has, in Rasoi Ltd. v. Collector (supra) as also the West Regional Bench has, in FDC Ltd. v. Collector (also supra) and in Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. Collector (also supra) as also in the instant matter, while referring the matter to the Larger Bench, come to a conclusion that when the packaging material is recognised as an input, and the same is not exempt from duty, the same gets eligible to availment of MODVAT Credit, notwithstanding the fact whether the container that is made out of such packaging material is recognised as an excisable product, and may even be exempt from duty as such excisable product, provided of course, the same is done in course of manufacture of final product. The West Regional Bench has also expressed the view that the facility under Rule 57F(2) of the Rules, would also be available. Considering what has been discussed above, and going through the reasonings adopted, the views expressed by both these Benches appear to be correct ones and are therefore endorsed as reflecting the correct position.
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Fdc Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 24 April, 1991

24. The East Regional Bench has, in Rasoi Ltd. v. Collector (supra) as also the West Regional Bench has, in FDC Ltd. v. Collector (also supra) and in Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. Collector (also supra) as also in the instant matter, while referring the matter to the Larger Bench, come to a conclusion that when the packaging material is recognised as an input, and the same is not exempt from duty, the same gets eligible to availment of MODVAT Credit, notwithstanding the fact whether the container that is made out of such packaging material is recognised as an excisable product, and may even be exempt from duty as such excisable product, provided of course, the same is done in course of manufacture of final product. The West Regional Bench has also expressed the view that the facility under Rule 57F(2) of the Rules, would also be available. Considering what has been discussed above, and going through the reasonings adopted, the views expressed by both these Benches appear to be correct ones and are therefore endorsed as reflecting the correct position.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 1 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 22 October, 1990

24. The East Regional Bench has, in Rasoi Ltd. v. Collector (supra) as also the West Regional Bench has, in FDC Ltd. v. Collector (also supra) and in Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. Collector (also supra) as also in the instant matter, while referring the matter to the Larger Bench, come to a conclusion that when the packaging material is recognised as an input, and the same is not exempt from duty, the same gets eligible to availment of MODVAT Credit, notwithstanding the fact whether the container that is made out of such packaging material is recognised as an excisable product, and may even be exempt from duty as such excisable product, provided of course, the same is done in course of manufacture of final product. The West Regional Bench has also expressed the view that the facility under Rule 57F(2) of the Rules, would also be available. Considering what has been discussed above, and going through the reasonings adopted, the views expressed by both these Benches appear to be correct ones and are therefore endorsed as reflecting the correct position.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 0 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1   2 Next