Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.17 seconds)Bdh Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 21 May, 2014
6. I find that in this case, the party had inadvertently reversed the cenvat credit in respect of inputs used in work in process alongwith the credit in respect of raw material in store at the time of fire accident. Later on, they realized their mistake that credit on inputs contained in the work in process was incorrect and applied for refund. The first contention of the revenue that the refund cannot be entertained under Section 11B is not correct as the Larger Bench of Honble Tribunal in case of BDH Industries Ltd. vs. CCE (supra) has held that all types of refund will be governed by Section 11B of the Act.
Cce vs Fenner (India) Ltd. on 24 April, 2003
- CCE vs. Fenner India Ltd. (supra)
M/S. Star Drugs And Research Labs Ltd vs Cce, Chennai-Iii on 24 August, 2015
- Hetoro Labs Ltd. vs. CCE (supra)
C.C.E. & S.T. Raipur vs M/S. Cadbury India Ltd on 30 April, 2015
- CCE vs. Cadbury India Ltd. (supra)
Sreepathi Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Central ... on 26 May, 2015
- Sreepathi Pharmaceuticals vs. CCE (supra)
Section 5 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Automotive Metal Stampings Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 11 April, 2011
The same position particularly in respect of re-credit of cenvat credit has been reiterated in the case of Automotive Metal Stampings Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The second issue whether the appellant was required to reverse the cenvat credit on inputs in process which was destroyed in fire is also no longer res-integra and it has been held in following decisions that the credit on inputs in process need not be reversed.
1