Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.46 seconds)

Union Of India & Ors vs M/S Hindustan Zinc Ltd on 6 May, 2014

30. Reverting to the facts of the case it is observed that appellant has exported PET plant from Neemrana in India to Jamaica, a place outside India with the services to install the same in Jamaica as received from M/s. Satnam Construction Co. Ltd. The later company only has given services to appellant for dismantling the said PET plant clearing, painting and repacking it for being exported. Hence the services received from M/s. Satnam were services exported. The activity done in India by said M/s. Satnam is definitely a service used by the provider of output service for providing output service. Hence, it is well covered in the definition of input services. I draw my support from the decision in the case of Union of India vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. reported as 2007 (2014) ELT 510 where Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan has held that goods which are necessary for running of plant and up-keeping of the machinery directly involved in the manufacturing and products are eligible to avail Modvat credit.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 90 - A K Sikri - Full Document

M/S Continental Foundation Joint ... vs Commissioner Of Central ... on 29 August, 2007

From the perusal of the show cause notice it is evident that all the facts have been derived by department from the records and documents of the appellant and the issues involved in the instant matter is of interpretational in nature. The appellant has acted 13 E/54759 / 2023-SM according to best of its understanding of the legal provisions. The appellant has relied upon the decision in the case of Continental Foundation Jt. Venture Vs. CCE, Chandigarh-1 [2007 (216) ELT-177-SC).
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 182 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S. Alfred Herbert (I) Ltd on 9 April, 2010

31. The decision by Hon'ble High Court of Chattisgarh in the case of Ambuja Cement Eastern Ltd. reported in 2010 (256) E.L.T. 690, and of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Alfred Herbert (India) Ltd. reported in 2010 (257) ELT 29, have followed the aforementioned decision of Rajasthan High Court. I 16 E/54759 / 2023-SM also find that the appeal filed by the Government against said judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court was dismissed by the Apex Court vide judgment reported in 2007 (214) ELT A115. In view of the said settled legal position on this issue.
Karnataka High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 35 - Full Document
1   2 Next