Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.40 seconds)Section 74 in The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [Entire Act]
The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Cit-I Ahmedabad vs Cadila Healthcare Ltd on 13 October, 2015
Ahmedabad-II versus Cadila Healthcare Ltd. 2013 (30) S.T.R. 3
(Guj.) wherein it was held that the air conditioners are necessary
for factory buildings as well as for activities relating to business
and are. therefore, integrally connected with our business and
thus the repairing activity of air conditioners are essential
services and are eligible services for the purpose of taking
Cenvat credit. The relevant extract of the judgment is
reproduced below:
M/S. Hindusthan Seals Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 26 March, 2012
19. Further, in the case of M/s. Hindustan Seals Ltd. v. CCE
Kolkata-II 2006 (196) E.L.T. 302 (Tri.-Kolkata), the claim of the
assessee for availing Modvat credit of duty paid on the plastic
crates was under Rule 57A and 57B as 'inputs'. The claim for
admissibility of the credit as capital goods was not one of the
issue before the Bench.
M/S. Gkn Sinter Metals Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Pune-I on 28 April, 2015
23. By various decisions of the Tribunal, in number of cases, it
has held that the equipment used for collecting, transporting or
dispensing material being necessary for undertaking production,
are required to be held as used "in relation to" the manufacture
of the final product. Reference in this regard, is made to
Tribunal's decision in the case of CCE Bangalore v. M/s. Anglo
French Drugs & Indus. Ltd. - 2008 (225) E.L.T. 76 (Tri.-Bang.),
in the case of CCE Rajkot v. M/s. Ajanta Transistor Clock Mfg.
Co. - 2009 (233) E.L.T. 97 (Tri.-Ahmd.). In the later decision,
Tribunal took note of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in
the case of M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. [2003
(158) E.L.T. 130 (S.C.)] holding that the bins, trolleys, etc. are
entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 217/86-C.E., which
exempts the goods used within the factory of production and
observed that as the provisions of notification are similar to Rule
57A, the benefit has to be extended to the plastic crates, as
input. The plastic crates were also held to be input in the case of
M/s. GKN Sinter Metals Ltd. v. CCE Pune-I - 2008 (224) E.L.T.
560 (Tri.-Mumbai).
M/S. Bry Asia Pvt.Ltd vs Cce, Delhi-Iii on 13 October, 2011
Bry Asia Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Delhi III, 2011 (10) TMI 207 (CESTAT
New Delhi)
Kellogs India Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise Mumbai ... on 19 March, 2001
In the case of M/s. Kellogg India Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-VIII
Carboline India Pvt Ltd vs Cce Chennai-Ii on 10 July, 2018
22. Similarly, in the case of Collr.of C.E. v. M/s. Solaris
Chemtech Ltd. - 2007 (214) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.), it was reiterated
that the expression "in or in relation to manufacture" of final
product must be given a wide connotation. A reference, at this
stage, may also be made to Larger Bench decision of the
Tribunal in the case of M/s. Union Carbide India Ltd. v. CCE -
1996 (86) E.L.T. 613 (Tri.-LB), laying down that the words "in
9 E/85851/2020
relation to the manufacture" has been used to widen and expand
the scope, meaning and content of the expression "inputs" so as
to attract the goods which do not enter directly or indirectly into
the finished product, but are used in any activity concerned with
or pertaining to the manufacture of the finished goods.
Nestle India Limited vs Cce Goa on 23 January, 2020
18. As contrary to the above, Revenue has drawn our attention
to the Tribunal's decision in the case of CCE, Salem v. M/s. PKPN
Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. 2005 (192) E.L.T. 541 (Tri.-Chennai),
laying down that the plastic crates are not entitled for capital
goods credit. The learned advocate has drawn our attention to
the Para 5 of the said decision where the claim was made by
assessee under Sr.No. (i) and it was found that since the plastic
7 E/85851/2020
crates do not fall under any of the specified headings
enumerated Sr.No. (i), their claim was rejected. It stand
specifically recorded in the said decision that the respondents
have no case that these plastic crates are components, spares
and accessories of any of the goods specified at Sr.No. (i) above.
As such, the above decision can be considered as having been
given by consensus and without adverting to the fact as to
whether the plastic crates would be covered by expression
accessories appearing in Sr.No. (iii) of Rule 2(b). The said
decision was subsequently followed in another decision given by
the same Bench in the case of CCE Salem v. M/s.
1