Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.20 seconds)
Racold Thermo Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 10 April, 2012 cites

M/S. Racold Thermo Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Pune I on 20 March, 2012

Racold Thermo Ltd., Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Respondent Pune Appearance: Shri.Makrand Joshi, Advocate for appellant Shri.D.M.Durando, AR, for respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.R.Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 10/04/2012 Date of Decision : /04/2012 ORDER NO Per: P.R. Chandrasekharan
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

M/S Rajratan Synthetics Limited vs Cce, Indore on 8 December, 2010

3. The Ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that the communication received from the Assistant Commissioner rejecting their claim for Cenvat credit and directing them to reverse the Cenvat credit along with interest is a decision or order for the purpose of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and, therefore, an appeal against said communication lies before the Commissioner (Appeals). He relies on the judgement of this Tribunal in the case of Shree Synthetics Ltd., Vs. CCE,Indore, reported in 1987 (29) ELT 443 (Tri) wherein it was held that if a communication in substance contains determination of a question by the application of objective standards as per the legal rules and it declares right or imposes an obligation affecting their civil rights and it is based on an investigation involving ascertainment of facts by means of evidence and if a dispute be on question of law on the presentation of legal argument, and a decision resulting in the disposal of the matter on findings based upon those questions of law and fact then as per the decision of the Honble apex Court in the case of Jaswant Sugar Mills Vs. Laxmi Chand (AIR 1963 Supreme Court 677), the communication would become an appealable order.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1