Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)Technocraft Industries (I) Ltd. vs Cce Thane I on 13 August, 2019
5. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by both sides
and perused the records. The short point involved in the present appeal for
consideration is whether CENVAT Credit lying in balance in the books of
account of 100% EOU as on the date of de- bonding, could be transferred
to the DTA unit. We find that the issue has been considered by this Tribunal
in series of judgments viz. Technocraft Industries (India) Ltd Vs CCE
(supra), Tecumseh Products India P.Ltd Vs CC,CE&ST (supra),
Hyderabad-IV, John Deere India Pvt. Ltd Vs CCE(supra), Pune-III and
CCE, Thane-I Vs Sequent Scientific Ltd(supra). It has been consistently
held by the Tribunal in all these cases that the CENVAT Credit lying in
balance as on the date of de-bonding of 100% EOU and conversion to DTA
unit, could be transferred to the DTA unit and be utilised by the said unit.
Following the principle consistently laid down by the Tribunal in aforesaid
cases, we do not find merit in the impugned order, which is contrary to the
said precedents.
Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... vs Ashok Iron & Steel Fabricators on 31 July, 2001
In CCE,
Rajkot v. Ashok Iron and Steel Fabricators reported in 2002 (140) E.L.T.
277 (Tri. - L.B.) cited by the Ld. Counsel for the appellants, this Tribunal
held as follows :-
John Deere India Pvt Ltd vs Cce Pune Iii on 14 June, 2019
5. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by both sides
and perused the records. The short point involved in the present appeal for
consideration is whether CENVAT Credit lying in balance in the books of
account of 100% EOU as on the date of de- bonding, could be transferred
to the DTA unit. We find that the issue has been considered by this Tribunal
in series of judgments viz. Technocraft Industries (India) Ltd Vs CCE
(supra), Tecumseh Products India P.Ltd Vs CC,CE&ST (supra),
Hyderabad-IV, John Deere India Pvt. Ltd Vs CCE(supra), Pune-III and
CCE, Thane-I Vs Sequent Scientific Ltd(supra). It has been consistently
held by the Tribunal in all these cases that the CENVAT Credit lying in
balance as on the date of de-bonding of 100% EOU and conversion to DTA
unit, could be transferred to the DTA unit and be utilised by the said unit.
Following the principle consistently laid down by the Tribunal in aforesaid
cases, we do not find merit in the impugned order, which is contrary to the
said precedents.
M/S. Tecumseh Products India Pvt. Ltd vs Cc&Ce, Hyderabad-Iv on 7 June, 2016
5. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by both sides
and perused the records. The short point involved in the present appeal for
consideration is whether CENVAT Credit lying in balance in the books of
account of 100% EOU as on the date of de- bonding, could be transferred
to the DTA unit. We find that the issue has been considered by this Tribunal
in series of judgments viz. Technocraft Industries (India) Ltd Vs CCE
(supra), Tecumseh Products India P.Ltd Vs CC,CE&ST (supra),
Hyderabad-IV, John Deere India Pvt. Ltd Vs CCE(supra), Pune-III and
CCE, Thane-I Vs Sequent Scientific Ltd(supra). It has been consistently
held by the Tribunal in all these cases that the CENVAT Credit lying in
balance as on the date of de-bonding of 100% EOU and conversion to DTA
unit, could be transferred to the DTA unit and be utilised by the said unit.
Following the principle consistently laid down by the Tribunal in aforesaid
cases, we do not find merit in the impugned order, which is contrary to the
said precedents.
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Gst&Amp;Cce(Chennai ... on 25 July, 2019
10. So also in the case of Sun Pharmaceuticals (supra), the Tribunal
held as under:-
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992
Jubilant Life Sciences Ltd. vs Cce, Thane I on 17 September, 2019
The decision in the case
of Jubilant Life Sciences Ltd. Vs. CCE, Thane reported in 2019 (10) TMI
580 was also relied.
M/S. Handy Waterbase India (P) Ltd vs Cce, Tirunelveli on 2 March, 2016
"8. We find that at the material time the CER or CCR did not contain any
provision barring the 100% EOUs from availing cenvat credit or utilizing the
same for payment of duty on excisable goods removed to the DTA or for
payment of duty on goods exported under claim for rebate. Also there exists
no bar for a DTA unit carrying over inputs and the cenvat credit balance in
its accounts when it got converted into an EOU. We also observe that this
Tribunal in Waterbase Ltd. v. CCE, Guntur reported in 2005 (187) E.L.T.
346 (Tri. - Bang.) had made the following observations.
1