Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.61 seconds)Union Carbide India Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise, Calcutta on 25 September, 2003
He pleaded that under Rules 57B(2) manufacturer of final products are not allowed to take credit of duty on machines, machinery, equipment, apparatus, tools, appliances or capital goods as defined in Ruled 57Q (other than those used as component parts in the manufacture of final products), used for any purpose in the factory. He stated that the parts and spares for paint plant are parts of capital goods falling under sub-heading 84.24, therefore these cannot be considered as eligible for Modvat credit when heading 84.24 is excluded from, the capital goods. He stated that these cannot be taken as inputs as they are not used in the manufacture of the final products. He pleaded that only those inputs which are notified under Rule 57A are eligible for Modvat credit as inputs and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Union Carbide India Ltd. (supra) and other decisions relied upon by the appellants are not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Collector Of Central Excise, Meerut vs Modi Rubber Ltd on 9 October, 2001
The Commissioner (Appeals) has also not examined whether the declaration filed by the appellants under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules for the components of paint plant can be taken as declaration under Rule 57A in view of the Tribunal's decision in the case of CCE, Meerut-I v. Modi Rubber Ltd. .
The Collector Of Central Excise,Patna vs Tata Engineering Andlocomotive Co. ... on 7 May, 1997
Parts of paint plant are not covered by this exclusion clause. Therefore, parts of paint plant are eligible for credit as inputs under Rule 57A as has been held by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in case of Union Carbide India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-I and this decision was subsequently upheld by the High Court in case of Collector of Central Excise, Patna v. Tata Engineering & locomotive Co. Ltd. and in case of Escorts Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore .
Torrent Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of Incia on 20 October, 1989
(i) High Court of Gujrat in case of Torrent Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI wherein it was held that whenever the Legislature makes a special provision which would be applicable to specific cases, the provision relating to specific cases would be applicable to specific cases and not the provision relating to general cases.
Darshan Hosiery Works vs Union Of India on 11 April, 1980
(ii) High Court of Gujrat in the case of Darshan Hosiery Works v. Union of India 1980 ELT 390 (Guj.) wherein it was held that if a special provision is applicable, then a general provision cannot apply to the same subject because special provision carves out an exception.
Cce vs Surya Roshni Ltd. on 18 February, 2003
(iv) Larger Bench of the Tribunal in case of CCE, Indore v. Surya Roshni Ltd. .
Cce, Madras And Cce, Guntur vs M/S. K.N. Chari Rubber & Plastics, M/S. ... on 10 April, 2001
8. We therefore set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and remand the case back to him to examine the eligibility of component parts of paint plant for Modvat credit on the basis of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Union Carbide India Ltd. (supra) and in the case of CCE v. Modi Rubber Ltd. (supra) and pass fresh order. The other issues are kept open.
M/S. Escorts Limited, Yelahanka, ... vs Collector Of Central Excise, Bangalore on 1 December, 1999
Parts of paint plant are not covered by this exclusion clause. Therefore, parts of paint plant are eligible for credit as inputs under Rule 57A as has been held by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in case of Union Carbide India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-I and this decision was subsequently upheld by the High Court in case of Collector of Central Excise, Patna v. Tata Engineering & locomotive Co. Ltd. and in case of Escorts Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore .
Hematic Motors P. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 11 April, 1996
(iii) Tribunal in case of Hematic Motors P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune wherein it was held that Modvat credit scheme is consisting of a number of Rules. All the rules are to be read together for purpose of extending the benefit under the scheme.
1