Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.21 seconds)
Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. vs Coms,C.Ex - Shillong on 1 February, 2022 cites

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nasik on 16 July, 2014

21. As regards the reliance placed by the Ld. Departmental Representative on the decision of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. CCE, Nasik, 2009 (242) E.L.T. 358 (Tri. - Mumbai), we observe that the said judgment did not follow the already existing coordinate bench decision of the Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in the case of HPCL, which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M/S Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... vs Cce, St & C, Visakhapatnam-Ii on 25 August, 2016

14. In our view, the Appellant and the other OMCs are independent parties and are not related to each other. Though the SCN alleged the mutuality of interest on the ground that the MoU entered into between the parties benefitted each of them mutually, however, the said ground was relinquished by the adjudicating authority itself, while passing the impugned order. Further, even in our view, merely entering into a mutually beneficial arrangement like MoU in the instant case, cannot make the parties related for the purposes of Section 4(3)(b)(iv) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. For this we rely on the decision of the Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. V. Commissioner of C. Ex., Visakhapatnam-I [2005 (187) E.L.T. 479 (Tri. - Bang.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cce Mumbai Ii vs M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd on 18 July, 2012

Further, the said decision has already been dissented by the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench itself, in the case of CCE, Mumbai-IV vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 2014 (308) ELT 502 (Tri-Mumbai) and even the subsequent decisions of the Tribunal have relied on HPCL's case. Thus, we do not find the reliance of the Ld. Departmental Representative to be legally correct.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 1 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

M/S Kochi Refineries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Cochin on 6 October, 2016

Kochi Refineries Ltd. V. Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin [2017 (349) E.L.T. 338 (Tri. - Bang.)] c. The impugned order drops the ground of mutuality of interest which was the only basis for issuance of the SCNs. Further, the impugned order is based on the grounds/ facts which are both beyond the scope of SCN and are also incorrect. A para-wise rebuttal of the impugned order is given by the appellant to substantiate this contention.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next