Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.22 seconds)M/S. Secure Meters Ltd vs Cce, Jaipur-Ii on 20 January, 2010
)]; Secure Meters Ltd. Vs.
CCE, Jaipur-II [2017(3) GSTL 485 (Tri. Del.)]
C.C.E. Delhi-Iii vs M/S Pricol Ltd on 29 June, 2015
and Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Pricol Ltd.
[2021(48) GSTL 235 (Mad.)]., held that credit is admissible.
3.3. The appellant has also submitted that the demand notice
issued by the Department is barred by limitation and invoking of
extended period cannot be sustained since the fact of taking of
credit was disclosed and declared in the returns filed by the
appellant. The entire notice has been issued only on the basis of
audit of the records of the appellant and no facts have been
mis declared or suppressed from the Department. Further he has
submitted that the cenvat credit was taken on a bona fide
interpretation of the provisions and clarifications issued by the
Board from time to time. Therefore, invoking of extended period
of limitation is not sustainable. In support, they have referred the
following judgments:-
Continental Foundation Joint Venture ... vs Cce on 22 January, 2002
Continental Foundation Joint Venture Vs. CCE
[2007(216) ELT 177 (SC)]
iv. Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE [2002(146) ELT
481 (SC)]
Arising Out Of Order-In-Appeal No. ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 28 January, 2014
7.2. Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Lally Automobiles
Pvt. Ltd. case held as under:-
Section 73 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Finance Act, 1999
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Dashion Ltd....Opponent(S) on 1 May, 2013
wherein their
lordships following the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court
Page 3 of 12
Central Excise Appeal No.E/623/2010
in the case of CCE Vs. Dashion Ltd. [2016(41) STR 884 (Guj.)