Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.21 seconds)
Ruchi Infrastructure Ltd., Kedia ... vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise on 17 October, 2007 cites

Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd., ... vs Collector Of Central Excise, Central ... on 12 December, 1995

6. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The fact that appellant used common inputs for both the dutiable and exempted goods is not in dispute They are also not maintaining separate accounts for the inputs used in dutiable and exempted goods. Under these circumstances, they are covered by Rule 57CC/Rule 6. However, it is seen that 95% of the goods produced are cleared, on payment of duty and 5% are cleared at nil rate of duty. The appellants submit that the credit attributable to exempted final products has already been reversed. The dutiable demand at 8% is Rs. 2.69 crores However, the credit attributable to exempted goods is only Rs. 4.29 lakhs. We also feel that such a demand over Rs. 2 crores when the credit involved is only Rs. 4.29 lakhs is unjust especially when the appellants had already reversed credit The Apex Court in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires Pvt. Ltd., v. CCE, Nagpur has held that the reversal of credit on input used in the manufacture of final products amount to non availment of credit on inputs used in the exempted products and consequently the assessee was eligible for the benefit of the notification as the assessee was not availed of the credit. Applying ratio of this decision, we hold that when the credit attributable on the inputs used in the exempted product is reversed, there is no justification to demand 8% of the sale amount. In view of the above observations, we allow the appeal with consequential relief.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 125 - S C Sen - Full Document

Acme Pharmaceuticals And Icom Pharma ... vs Cce on 12 May, 2004

8. The learned JCDR distinguished the 5-Member Larger Bench judgment cited by the Sr. Counsel as in the case of Franco Italian Co. (supra) and that of Icon Pharma and Surgical Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (supra) on the ground that both the Larger Bench judgment was during the circumstance when there was provision of law for reversal of credit in respect of Rule 57I of the Cenvat Credit Rules.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 1 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co.Ltd on 8 August, 2007

12. Although the learned JCDR attempted to distinguish the judgment of CCE, Mumbai-I v. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. (supra) and also in the case of Franco India Ltd. (supra) and Icon Pharma & Surgical Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. CCE on the ground that in these cases the credit had been reversed after the goods were cleared, however, we notice that even though the assessee has delayed in reversing the credit, but they had paid interest for the delayed reversal. Therefore, the question of directing the assessee to pay 8% or 10% of the value of the exempted goods which runs to an exorbitant 340% is not justified and proper. The prayer of the appellants for availing the benefit as they have reversed the credit is required to be accepted in terms of the judgments cited by them. Thus, all these four appeals are allowed with consequential relief if any.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 51 - Full Document

Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. vs The Commissioner Of Customs, Central ... on 13 February, 2007

As can be seen from the above ruling the facts have been clearly noted which is identical to the facts in these cases. These facts have already been noted in the case of Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Mangalore rendered by this Bench by Final Order No. 588/2007 dated 18.5.2007 and applied the ratio of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Chandrapur Magnet (supra). The finding rendered in Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. has already been extracted supra.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Rallis India Limited vs Cce on 23 February, 2007

12. Although the learned JCDR attempted to distinguish the judgment of CCE, Mumbai-I v. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. (supra) and also in the case of Franco India Ltd. (supra) and Icon Pharma & Surgical Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. CCE on the ground that in these cases the credit had been reversed after the goods were cleared, however, we notice that even though the assessee has delayed in reversing the credit, but they had paid interest for the delayed reversal. Therefore, the question of directing the assessee to pay 8% or 10% of the value of the exempted goods which runs to an exorbitant 340% is not justified and proper. The prayer of the appellants for availing the benefit as they have reversed the credit is required to be accepted in terms of the judgments cited by them. Thus, all these four appeals are allowed with consequential relief if any.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 14 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare ... vs Cce on 13 February, 2004

6. We have gone through the records of the eases carefully. The issue of availing CENVAT credit in respect of common inputs used for dutiable and exempted products is subject matter of litigation in several disputes. The judicial fora have clearly enunciated the principle that once the credit availed in respect of the exempted products is reversed there is no need for payment of duty at 8% of the sale value of the exempted goods. The case laws cited by the ld. Counsel for the appellants are very relevant. Even this bench of this Tribunal, in the case of Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. v. CCE (supra) has held that when the appellants had reversed the entire credit taken on the inputs used for exempted products the demand of 8% is not sustainable The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrapur Maganet Wires (P) Ltd. (supra) has held that the reversal in. Modvat credit indicates as if no credit was taken on the inputs. In a Notification which gives the benefit of the Notification on condition that no Modvat credit has been taken on inputs, reversal of Modvat credit is permissible to avail exemption. Therefore, we hold that the orders in Appeal and Orders-in-Original cannot be sustained. We allow the appeals with consequential relief. There is also no justification for invoking the extended period as the fact of reversal of the Modvat credit had been intimated to the department in ER I Return. Both the appeals are allowed.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 10 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1   2 Next