Created by Fuzzy Cloud

CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001

5 judgments · newest first · showing 1–5

LIPI BOILERS LTD.versusTHE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD

2025 INSC 1297Appeal(s) allowed

Lipi Boilers Ltd. entered into a contract to design, procure, manufacture and supply a bagasse‑fired boiler in CKD condition, with several bought‑out components delivered directly to the buyer’s site. The revenue issued a show‑cause notice alleging that the value of these bought‑out items should be …

UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER ETC. ETC.versusM/S V.V.F LIMITED & ANOTHER ETC. ETC.

2020 INSC 347Disposed off

The Union of India issued an excise duty exemption for new industries in earthquake‑hit Kutch, promising a full cash/PLA refund. Subsequent notifications in 2008 limited the refund to a percentage based on actual value addition, citing tax‑evasion concerns. The original writ petitioners claimed the …

MADRAS CEMENTS LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

2010 INSC 280Dismissed

Madras Cements Ltd., a cement manufacturer, claimed Modvat credit for certain items it described as components, spares and accessories used in its mining operations during November‑December 1999. The Revenue argued that the items were not capital goods under Rule 570 of the Central Excise Rules and …

VIKRAM CEMENTversusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE

2005 INSC 379Matter referred to larger bench

Vikram Cement, a cement manufacturer, claimed CENVAT credit for duty paid on inputs (explosives, lubricating oil, welding electrodes) and capital goods (limestone crusher, mining equipment) used in its captive limestone mines adjacent to its factory. The department issued show‑cause notices …