Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.17 seconds)
Ms Indian Surcrose Ltd vs Jalandhar on 29 November, 2018 cites

M/S. Vandana Global Ltd vs C.C.E., Raipur on 26 September, 2016

3. Considering the fact that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has relied on the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case 2 E/61101/2018-[SM] of Vandana Global Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur - 2010 (253) ELT 440 (Tri. LB) wherein this Tribunal has held that any input used for fabrication of sports structures is not entitle for Cenvat credit as the said sports structures had become the immovable property and not excisable and the explanation of Rule 2(a) is only explanatory and is applicable retrospectively. The said decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal has been set aside by Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh reported in 2018 (16) GSTL 462 (Chhattisgarh).
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 10 - Cited by 90 - Full Document

M/S. Ambuja Cement Eastern Ltd vs C.C.E., Raipur on 26 March, 2014

4. Further, I find that as per the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Ambuja Cements Eastern Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur - 2010 (256) ELT 690 (Chhattisgarh) and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCE, Bangalore-I vs. Alfred Herbert (India) Ltd. - 2010 (257) ELT 29 (Kar.) it has been held that any input used for the repair and maintenance of the capital goods is entitle for Cenvat credit. Admittedly, in the case in hand, all the items in question have been used by the appellant for fabrication/repair and maintenance of capital goods. In these circumstances, I hold that the appellant is entitled to avail the Cenvat credit on the inputs in question.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 2 - Cited by 62 - Full Document
1