Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.29 seconds)
C.C.E.- Raipur vs M/S. Devi Iron & Steel Power Pvt. Ltd on 6 August, 2013 cites

Rallis India Limited vs The Union Of India on 16 December, 2008

5.1 In this case the iron ore fines arise as inevitable and unavoidable waste in course of processing of iron ore lumps and similarly the coal fines arise as inevitable and unavoidable waste in course of handling of coal in the respondents plant. The compliance with the provisions of Rule 6(2) regarding maintenance of separate account and inventory of cenvated inputs and input services meant for dutiable final products and exempted final products in such a situation is impossible and it is absurd to expect to comply with this provision in such a case. The provisions of Rule 6(2) read with 6(3) can not be construed to impose an obligation on a manufacturer which is impossible to comply and then go on to penalise him by demands of amounts under Rule 6(3) and penalty for failure to comply with the obligation which is impossible. Lex non cogit ad impossibilia is a well settled legal principle which is applicable to tax matters also. Honble Bombay High Court in the case of Rallis India Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in 2009(233) ELT-301 (Bom.) has held that the Provisions of Rule 57CC of Central Excise Rules, 1944, which is in pari materia with the provisions of Rule 6(3) read with Rule 6(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, do not apply when while manufacturing a dutiable final product by using Cenvat Credit availed inputs, an inevitable by product fully exempt from duty also arises.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 92 - J P Devadhar - Full Document

Cce, Raipur vs M/S Devi Iron & Power Ltd on 6 September, 2012

4. Ms.Tuhina, ld. counsel for the respondent, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of Commissioner(Appeals) in the impugned order and also cited the judgments of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Raipur Vs. Devi Iron & Power Ltd. reported in 2013(287) ELT-494, CCE Meerut Vs. Maa Mangla Ispat Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2013(293) ELT-380 and also the judgment of Honble Bombay High Court in the case of Rallis India Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in 2009(233) ELT-301.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1