Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)Section 4 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Ispat Industries Ltd vs Cce Raigad on 14 January, 2015
13. As regards the valuation of the subject goods, cleared to the
sister unit for captive consumption, the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in
the case of Ispat Industries Ltd Vs. CCE, Raigad, has inter alia held as
under:-
Indian Drugs Manufacturers ... vs Union Of India on 22 December, 2011
If the intention was not to restrict the applicability of Rule 8 to
cases where the entire production was being captively consumed,
the Rule would have simply stated "where excisable goods are
consumed by an assessee himself or on his behalf in the
8
Excise Appeal No. 75474-75475 of 2014
manufacture of other articles" instead of preceding the above
expression with the words "where the excisable goods are not
sold". This view is also supported by the judgment of the
jurisdictional High Court in the case of Indian Drug Manufacturers
Association v. Union of India, wherein the Court held that Rule 8
applies in a situation where goods are not sold but are cleared
„exclusively‟ to be used in consumption or for manufacture of
other articles. We also agree with the contention of the assessee
that Rule 8 will apply only in two situations, (a) where the goods
are consumed by him in the same factory (captive consumption)
or (b) where such goods are transferred to another factory for
consumption in the manufacture of other articles on behalf of the
assessee. In this case, it is not the case of the revenue that the
goods were transferred to other units for manufacture of other
articles on behalf of the assessee/appellant, i.e. the Dolvi Unit.
We agree with the assessee‟s contention that the expression
„assessee‟, wherever it appears in the Central Excise Rules,
applies to a particular factory, which is why different units
belonging to one company are separately registered and
separately assessed to duty. Since the assessee in the present
case is the Dolvi plant and it is not the revenue‟s case that the
other three units of the company to whom HR coils were
transferred were undertaking further manufacturing operations
on behalf of the Dolvi Unit, the provisions of Rule 8 will not apply.
We, therefore, hold that Rule 8 is inapplicable in the instant case.
Section 35 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
Section 11 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
M/S. Gsp Crop Science Pvt. Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ... on 5 January, 2015
To similar ratio is the decision of
the Tribunal in the case of Ravi Crop Science Vs. Commissioner of
Central Excise, J&K, 2023 (1) TMI 1298 adopting the law as
propounded by the J&K High Court in the case cited supra.
Cadila Pharmaceuticals vs C.C.E., Ahmedabad Ii on 30 January, 2017
In this regard they seek to
distinguish the ruling of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, in case of
Cadila Pharmaceuticals Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad-II, 2008 (232) ELT
245 (Tri.-LB), as it did not concern captive consumption of goods and
was in the context of valuation of physician samples.
Commissioner Of Central Gst And Central ... vs Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd on 11 May, 2021
In
support of the stand the learned Advocate places reliance on the
4
Excise Appeal No. 75474-75475 of 2014
observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir, in the case
of Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Vs. Krishi Rasayan
Exports Pvt. Ltd., 2023 (7) TMI 661, wherein the Hon'ble High Court
had categorically held that without challenging the refund sanction
order, the Adjudicating Authority cannot launch proceedings under
Section 11A of the Central Excise Act for recovery of the refund amount
referred as erroneous payment. The relevant part of the impugned
judgment is reproduced below:-
1