Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal allows capital goods credit on spare parts post-fire incident, emphasizing eligibility and legal provisions.</h1> <h3>Hinduja Foundries Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-I</h3> The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing capital goods credit on spare parts purchased for replacement after a fire accident in 2006. The ... Denial of CENVAT Credit - Capital goods - Held that:- Credit was disallowed only on the premise that the original equipment was purchased in 1991 where no credit scheme was in force. Prima facie , I find that there was no such provision in Cenvat rules for denial of capital goods credit on the parts imported for replacement, particularly during that period original equipments were not covered under modvat scheme. Compensation scheme from the insurance company has no relevance for availment of credit on capital goods purchased in 2006. Prima facie , appellants have made out a case for waiver of predeposit of demand in question. Accordingly, predeposit of dues arising out of the impugned order is waived and recovery thereof stayed during pendency of appeal - Stay granted. Issues: Denial of capital goods credit on spare parts purchased for replacement due to a fire accident in 2006.Analysis:1. Denial of Capital Goods Credit: The main issue in this case pertains to the denial of capital goods credit on spare parts purchased for replacement due to a fire accident in 2006. The appellant argued that the original capital goods were procured in 1991 when no modvat credit scheme was available. The appellant received compensation from the insurance company after the fire accident, which included the excise duty component. The appellant contended that this compensation should not affect the credit availed on the spare parts purchased in 2006, as they did not claim capital goods credit on the equipment imported in 1991. The appellant relied on the case law in CCE Bangalore Vs Tata Advanced Materials Ltd. - 2011 (271) ELT 62 (Kar.) to support their argument.2. Legal Standpoint: The appellant's advocate argued that the spare parts purchased in 2006 are governed by the Central Excise Rules, 2000, and there is no provision to deny this credit based on the lack of credit scheme availability when the original equipment was purchased in 1991. The Tribunal noted that the credit was disallowed solely because the original equipment was acquired in 1991 when no credit scheme was in place. However, the Tribunal found no provision in the Cenvat rules to justify the denial of capital goods credit on parts imported for replacement, especially when the original equipment was not covered under the modvat scheme during that period.3. Decision and Predeposit Waiver: After considering the arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal found that the compensation received from the insurance company had no bearing on the availment of credit on capital goods purchased in 2006. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants had a valid case for the waiver of predeposit of the demand in question. Therefore, the Tribunal waived the predeposit of dues arising from the impugned order and stayed the recovery during the pendency of the appeal, allowing the stay application.4. Final Verdict: In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, acknowledging their entitlement to capital goods credit on the spare parts purchased for replacement following the fire accident in 2006. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the absence of a legal basis to deny the credit based on the lack of a credit scheme when the original equipment was procured in 1991. The judgment emphasized the importance of examining the relevant legal provisions and case laws to determine the eligibility for capital goods credit in similar circumstances.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved, the legal arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal's decision, and the implications of the ruling on the denial of capital goods credit on spare parts purchased for replacement due to a fire accident in 2006.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found