Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.29 seconds)Collector Of Central Excise, Vadodra vs M/S. Dhiren Chemical Industries on 12 December, 2001
5.1 In view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dhiren Chemical Industries (supra), it is clear that the appellant is not eligible for the exemption under Sr. No. 142 of Notification No. 6/2002 dated 1.3.2002, inasmuch as the conditions prescribed thereunder are not satisfied and the appellant became eligible for duty exemption on the captively consumed twine w.e.f. 2.1.2003. From the records, it is also seen that the appellant had requested for grant of exemption under Section 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which was considered by the Government of India and vide letter dated 1.10.2004, the said request was rejected by the Government. Therefore, during the period from 26.9.2002 to 1.1.2003, the appellant is liable to pay excise duty on the nylon twine captively consumed and we hold accordingly.
The Customs Tariff Act, 1975
Garware Marine Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 13 July, 2011
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen
of the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
======================================================
M/s Garware Marine Industries Ltd.
Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Ravindra Jain, Consultant
for Appellant
Shri Navneet, Addl. Commissioner (AR)
for Respondent
CORAM:
SHRI P.R. CHANDRASEKHARAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Date of Hearing: 04.09.2013
Date of Decision: 04.09.2013
ORDER NO.
Per: P.R. Chandrasekharan
1