Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

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 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2008 (12) TMI 500

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Tiju, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  The issue involved in this appeal is whether Cenvat credit can be availed on welding electrodes used for the purpose of repair and maintenance of capital goods (machinery). The dispute relates to the period April, 2006 to October, 2006 and the duty involved is Rs. 3,44,755/- and a penalty of  Rs. 1,75,000/- has been imposed under Rule 5 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 553 (Tri.-LB) = 2003 (57) RLT 739. Hon'ble High Court relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. Jawahar Mills, 2001 (132) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) = 2001 (45) RLT 739 (S.C.) and J.K. Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. [1997 (91) E.L.T. 34 (S.C.) Reference was also invited to another decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Union of India v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd., ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Tribunal in appellants own case for the earlier period reported in 2008 (225) E.L.T. 222 (Tri.-Mum.) and Tribunal decision in the case of India Sugars and Refineries Ltd., 2006 (205) E.L.T. 517 (Tri.-Bang.) = 2006 (74) RLT 61 (CESTAT-Ban.), Manikgrah Cement, 2008-TIOL-43-CESTAT-Mum., ITC Ltd. v. C.C.Ex., 2008-TIOL-117-CESTAT-Bang. and CCE v. Andhra Sugars Ltd., 2006 (74) RLT 284 (CESTAT-Ban.). ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppeal filed by SAIL. The facts of the case of SAIL as stated in para 5 of the Tribunal's decision was that the machinery was not used in the production of the final products. Hence in these facts the Supreme Court dismissed the SAIL appeal. However, without prejudice to above, it was submitted that in any case the issue is one of interpretation where there have been contradictory views for and aga....