Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.29 seconds)The Central Excise Act, 1944
The Finance Act, 2018
Collector Of Central Excise, Jaipur ... vs Rajasthan State Chemical Works ... on 17 September, 1991
In the case of Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur v. R.K. Marbles Ltd. [1997 (92) E.L.T. 276], the benefit of Modvat credit under Rule 57Q was extended to gantry crane and trolley used for transfer of raw materials for sawing marble holding that the handling of raw materials by these goods is integrally connected with the process of manufacture of marble, relying upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Rajasthan Chemical Works (supra).
Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 9 February, 1998
In the case of Mahindra & Mahindra v. Collector of Central Excise reported in [1996 (86) E.L.T. 258], the contention of the Revenue that baskets and fixtures used for placing components in the oven do not bring about a change in the raw material nor do they produce the components by themselves and are, therefore, not used for producing or processing any goods or for causing any change in the substance for the manufacture of final products and are therefore, not covered by the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q, was rejected by the Tribunal which held that fixture and baskets which were material handling equipment contributed to the processing of the components since without them, the oven cannot be effectively used for the purpose of change in the components. The Tribunal extended the benefit of Modvat to fixtures and baskets considering them to be covered by the definition of capital goods contained in explanation to Rule 57Q.
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M.M. Forgings Ltd. on 15 April, 1997
In the case of Collector of Central Excise v. M.M. Forgings reported in [1997 (89) E.L.T. 617], the Tribunal, relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Rajasthan Chemical Works (cited supra) held that the term 'capital goods' has to be read in the context of the use of the equipment in the assessees factory and what has to be seen is whether equipment used is a part of the manufacturing stream in the assessees factory and whether the use is for production or processing or for bringing about any change in the materials used in the manufacture of final product. In that case, the goods were four Fork lifts used for lifting raw materials from one place to another place within the respondents factory. The respondents had pleaded that unless iron forgings of various sizes manufactured by them are lifted and materials out of which they are manufactured are transported, the manufacturing process is not possible. The Tribunal observed that the respondents' claim will have to be considered in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above and hence remanded the matter to the lower authority for this purpose, holding that if the respondents were able to show that the use of fork lifts is essential in their factory and that without the use of the same, the final product could not be manufactured, they would be entitled to the benefit of Modvat credit in terms of Rule 57Q.
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs R.K. Marbles Ltd. on 25 October, 1996
In the case of Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur v. R.K. Marbles Ltd. [1997 (92) E.L.T. 276], the benefit of Modvat credit under Rule 57Q was extended to gantry crane and trolley used for transfer of raw materials for sawing marble holding that the handling of raw materials by these goods is integrally connected with the process of manufacture of marble, relying upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Rajasthan Chemical Works (supra).
M/S. Basant Industries, Agra vs Collector Of Central Excise on 9 December, 1994
In the case of Vasant Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur reported in [1995 (75) E.L.T. 21 (S.C.)], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recorded that the Tribunal found it as a fact that the appellant had no control over either the manufacturing process or the manufacturing apparatus and hence the Court set aside the finding of the Tribunal that oil driven pumps manufactured by the independent units on payment were manufactured on behalf of the appellants.
Collector Of Central Excise,Baroda vs M/S. M.M. Khambhatwala on 9 May, 1996
In the case of Collector of Central Excise v. MM. Khambhatwala reported in [1996 (84) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.)], the Apex Court found that the respondents who are suppliers of raw materials for manufacture of agar-bati/dhoop to household ladies at their house, outside the factory premises, had no supervision over the manufacture and hence held that the respondents were not the manufacturers of agarbati/dhoop etc. but that the household ladies were the manufacturers of the goods in question.
Tata Engg. Locomotive Co. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 31 May, 1996
Please refer to the judgment passed by the CEGAT vide Final Order No E/391/93-B1, dated 16-11-1993 in the case of Tata Engineering & Locomotive v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune [1994 (70) E.L.T. 75 (Tribunal). In view of the above, no Modvat credit under Capital Goods heading is available on material handling equipments and weighing instruments. It means, however, that Modvat credit can be availed under Rule 57A for these items. You are advised to take corrective measure in this regard."