Commissioner Of Central Excise vs R.K. Marbles Ltd. on 25 October, 1996
(c) Material handling equipment: CCE v. R.K. Marbles Ltd. -1997 (92) E.L.T. 276 (Tribunal) and 1991 (55) E.L.T. 444 (S.C).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)Mithilesh Kumari & Anr vs Prem Behari Khare on 14 February, 1989
He also referred to the Apex Court decision in Mithelesh Kumari and Anr. v. Prem Behari Kheri reported in AIR (1989) S.C. 1247 as to the retrospective effect of fiscal statutes.
C.C.E. And Customs vs Agarshakti Paper Mills (P) Ltd. on 22 March, 1995
This Tribunal had also in CCE v. Nav Bharat Paper Mills -1996 (86) E.L.T. 501 held that electrical transformer and electronic control panel boards used for regulating supply of electrical current to the machines were eligible capital goods even for the period prior to 16-3-1995.
C.C.E. vs Travancore Electro Chemical Inds. Ltd. on 26 October, 1994
(c) Material Handling Equipment
Appellants have claimed credit of duty paid on wagon loader, fork Lift truck, Warm Shaft used in conveyor gear box, locomotive, Technological structural parts, strings plates, Idlers, Spares for conveyor idlers, Polyester Polymide conveyor belting, Drive Pulley, Discharge chute, electric hoist, positive displacement twin lobe blower and EOT crane. Appellant have relied on the Apex Court judgment in CCE v. Rajasthan State Chemical Works -1991 (55) E.L.T. 444 (S.C.) to contend that the process of handling, lifting and transportation of raw material is a process in relation to manufacture if these processes are integrally connected with further operations leading to the manufacture of goods. Appellants have further submitted that handling of raw-material was an integrally connected process in the manufacture of cement as it is impossible to transfer such raw-material and semi-finished goods manually from one place to another without use of the said material handling equipment.
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M.M. Forgings Ltd. on 15 April, 1997
Further/in CCE v. M.M. Forgings -1997 (89) E.L.T. 617 the Tribunal had held that Fork-lifts would be entitled to benefit of Modvat credit if it is shown that in the absence of Fork lifts the assessee would not be able to manufacture their final product.
C.C.E. vs Bhayana Electronics Industries (P) ... on 10 August, 1994
We also note that in CCE v. Uttam Industrial Engineering (P) Ltd. - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 498, it was held that EOT cranes used for moving parts of machinery in the production line would be eligible capital goods even prior to 16-3-1995. Having regard to the aforesaid decisions we hold that the items presently shown as material handling equipment would also be eligible for Modvat credit.
Cce vs Peripherals India And Ors. on 29 July, 1993
8. As regards the submissions made on behalf of the Department and reliance placed on the Tribunal Order in CCE v. Eourts (India) supra we do not consider that any departure from the considered views of the Tribunal as reflected in earlier decisions are called for.
1