New Steel Trading Pvt. Ltd., Dinesh Mehta Versus Commissioner of CGST, Thane Rural
Central Excise
2018 (6) TMI 769 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 24-4-2018
Appeal Nos. E\/87995, 87998\/2017 – Order No. A\/86152-86153\/2018
Central Excise
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)
\nShri Sunil Agarwal, Advocate, for appellant
\nShri S.J. Sahu, Assistant Commissioner (AR), and Shri Deepak Chavan, Superintendent (AR), for respondent
\nORDER
\nThe facts of the case are that the appellant is using their moulds for manufacture of their final product. After use for the substantial period, the moulds get damaged and defective, which are not capable of being used further. Therefore, the said defective\/damaged moulds ar<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n in the case of Wyeth Laboratories Ltd. vs. CCE, Bombay – 2000 (120) ELT 218 (Tri.-LB). He also relied upon the following judgments:- = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" New Steel Trading Pvt. Ltd., Dinesh Mehta Versus Commissioner of CGST, Thane RuralCentral Excise2018 (6) TMI 769 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMICESTAT MUMBAI – ATDated:- 24-4-2018Appeal Nos. E\/87995, 87998\/2017 – Order No. A\/86152-86153\/2018Central ExciseHon'ble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Shri Sunil Agarwal, Advocate, for appellant Shri S.J. Sahu, Assistant Commissioner (AR), and Shri Deepak Chavan, … Continue reading “New Steel Trading Pvt. Ltd., Dinesh Mehta Versus Commissioner of CGST, Thane Rural”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12252","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12252","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12252"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12252\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12252"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12252"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12252"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n (i) La Prenca Industries Pvt. Ltd. – 2017 (346) ELT 412 (Tri.-Mum.);
\n (ii) La Prenca Industries Pvt. Ltd. – 2017 (349) ELT A27 (Bom.);
\n (iii) Shakti Wire Products – 2009 (241) ELT 223 (Tri.- Mum.);
\n (iv) Surya Colour Products Pvt. Ltd. – 2012 (280) ELT 455 (Tri.-Bang.).
\n3. Shri S.J. Sahu, learned Assistant Commissioner and Shri Deepak Chavan, learned Superintendent (ARs), appearing on behalf of Revenue, reiterate the finding of the impugned order.
\n4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides.
\n5. I find that the Revenue has sought to demand excise duty on the damaged\/defecti<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n