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

2007 (11) TMI 246

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... has been filed, praying to decide the following question of law: "Whether the learned Tribunal has not erred in holding that the restriction under Notification No. 14/97-C.E. (N.T.), dated 3-5-1997 shall not be applicable to taking Modvat on RFO, whereas RFO is nothing but LSHS (Low Sulphur Heavy Stock) and hence covered under the ambit of Notification No. 14/97-C.E. (N.T.), dated 3rd May, 199....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3, shows, that it has based its judgment on various other judgments, including the one in the case of M/s. Camphor & Allied Product Ltd., contained in Final Order No. A/132/2002 -NB dated 28-1-2002, reported in 2002 (147) E.L.T. 600. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent pointed out, that apart from this judgment in M/s. Camphor & Allied Product Ltd. case, in Surya Roshni Ltd. v. CCE, Indore re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he application under Section 35H, it is not the ground raised by the petitioner either, that those judgments have not correctly decided, or the facts in those cases are different so as to be not applicable to the present case, or that, these judgments no more hold good. In that view of the matter, since even now the learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to inform about the status....