Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.19 seconds)
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Raigad vs M/S. Wartsila (I) Pvt. Ltd on 7 January, 2016 cites

Akzo Nobel Coatings (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs Commr. Of C. Ex. on 17 January, 2005

Akzo Nobel Coatings (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commr. of C.Ex, Bangalore  2005 (184) E.L.T. 306 (Tri.-Bang.) 2. We have heard both sides in the matter and find from the Notification that there is no prohibition to Indian Navy through sub-contractors. There is no dispute with regard to the receipt of the goods by the Indian Navy and they have issued certificate certifying about the receipt of the goods in respect of purchase orders placed by the Indian Navy to M/s MDL and M/s. Western Indian Shipyard, Goa.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M/S Goa Paints Allied Products vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Goa on 12 July, 2001

We find from the citations referred to the appellant that the Mumbai Bench in the case of Goa Paints and Allied Products Vs. CCE, Goa [2001 (127) E.L.T. 489] in identical facts and circumstances pertaining to the same Notification and supplies made to Indian Navy through sub-contractor has been approved by the Tribunal and the benefit has been extended. In the cited case, the goods were supplied by the appellants therein to M/s. MDL and M/s. Goa Shipyards Ltd. who in turn supplied the goods to Indian Navy. In terms of the said Notification, the Tribunal approved the said supplies and set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) Orders denying the benefit in the matter. We find that this judgment of the Tribunal applies with in all fours to the present case. It has also been approved by the Apex Court as noted in [2001 (129) ELT A308] by dismissing the Revenue Appeal.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 0 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Cce, Raipur (C.G.) vs Authorised Person Of M/S. Balaji Loha ... on 5 June, 2013

and CCE vs. Haji Patrawala Pvt Ltd [1999 (114) ELT 620] has no applicability. Following the ratio of the decision in the case of Goa Paints and Allied Products cited above, which has been approved by the Apex Court, the impugned Order is set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any. In view of the above judgments, it is clear that the respondent is entitled for exemption notification No. 64/95-CE (Sr. No. 21) on their goods supplied for construction of warship of Indian Navy. As regard demand under Rule 6(3)(b), we find that the respondent have admittedly reversed the cenvat credit in respect of inputs used in exempted goods at the time of clearance of such exempted goods which tentamount to non-availment of credit. This view is supported by various judgments cited by the Ld. Counsel. Moreover as per the retrospective amendment made in Rule 6 vide Finance Act; the assessee is required to reverse the actual centvat credit attributable to exempted goods. For this reason also the demand of 8% proposed in the SCN under Rule 6(3)(b) is not correct. We are therefore of the considered view that the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner is just and legal, which does not require any interference. We therefore, uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 7 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Leader Engg. Works vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 13 September, 1996

[Notification No. 25/2002-C.E., dated 11-4-2002] From the above entry, it is observed that the goods supplied should be used in the construction of warship of Indian Navy and a certificate from the Indian Navy should be produced to the Central Excise officer. In the said condition, it is no where mentioned that the goods has to be supplied to Indian Navy. Therefore, there is no dispute that the goods supplied to Mazgaon Dock for manufacture of Indian Navy warship, therefore in our considered view there is no need that the goods should be supplied to Indian Navy only. The judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Leader Engineering Works (supra), it is not a case of supply of goods for construction of Indian Navy warship but it is in respect of goods supplied as stores for consumption on board a vessel of the Indian Navy. Therefore the fact of the present case is completely different from the fact of the judgment of Honble Supreme Court. Therefore, the said judgment is clearly distinguished.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 Next