M/S. Sts Chemical Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Mumbai ... on 11 May, 2001
So, the case of M/s Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd (supra) as relied upon by the learned AR is not applicable in the present case.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)Eid Parry (I) Ltd. vs Cce on 31 October, 2002
Mum) and EID Parry (I) Ltd vs CCE, Trichy reported in 2002 (150) ELT 765 (Tri.Che), wherein it was held that MS Tank is eligible for modvat credit as it is a capital goods and therefore entitled to the benefit of Rule 57Q.
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Indore vs Surya Roshni on 8 March, 2002
8. The Tribunal also relied on the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore vs Surya Roshini Ltd reported in 2001 (128) ELT 293 (Tri-LB) and came to the conclusion that the Rule should be interpreted as prevailing during the relevant period.
Commissioner, Central Excise, Jaipur vs M/S. Raj. Spinning & Weaving Mills &Anr on 13 February, 2012
We have also noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd (supra) as relied upon the Hon'ble High Court in the appellant's own case, allowed MODVAT credit on MS channels, steel plants etc., as capital goods used for erection of chimney for diesel generating set. The findings of the Commissioner that these are structures fixed to earth with concrete foundations and are immovable appears to be beyond the scope of the show-cause notice.
M/S. Kcp Ltd vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, Chennai on 3 September, 2013
19. In the case of KCP Limited, there is a clear finding that the goods were purchased and exported and was not used in the manufacturing process. The facts of the above case is distinct from the present case.
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
The Central Excise Act, 1944
1