|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 159 Records
-
2019 (12) TMI 718 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Permission to withdraw of appeal - CENVAT Credit - duty paying invoices - supplementary invoices - Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rule, 2004 - HELD THAT:- At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant placed on record affidavit dated 30.11.2019 of one Sh.Chand Singh, Authorised Signatory on behalf of the appellant-private company filed in Court today, whereby it is revealed that the appellant has availed the benefits under the Amnesty Scheme, 2019 and upon acceptance of his application, the appellant wishes to withdraw the present appeal.
Appeal dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2019 (12) TMI 717 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Permission for withdrawal of appeal - scope of manufacturer - offending portion of the notification dated 8.4.2011 - HELD THAT:- The applicant-petitioner has moved this application seeking an unconditional withdrawal of the writ petition in view of the petitioner having availed the benefit of Amenity Scheme floated by the Government of India effective w.e.f. 1.9.2019.
SLP dismissed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 716 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Recovery of duty alongwith interest and penalty - Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 - HELD THAT:- Perusing the petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, the present petition is disposed of at this stage by permitting the petitioner to raise all objections as has been sought to be raised in the writ petition by submitting reply to the show-cause notice (Annexure P/1) within one month.
-
2019 (12) TMI 715 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Interest on delayed refund - relevant date for calculation of interest - appellant is seeking interest from the date of deposit of duty whereas the Revenue is of the view that the appellant is entitled to interest after the expiry of three months from the date of application i.e. from 24.05.2018 when the appellant moved application for refund after the decision of the Tribunal - Section 11BB of CEA - Board Circular No. 670/61/2002-CX dated 01.10.2002 - HELD THAT:- In view of the law laid down by the Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. [ 2011 (10) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT ] which have been subsequently followed by various Benches of the Tribunal and the High Court, it can be held that the appellants are entitled to interest under Section 11BB of the Act commencing from the date of expiry of three months from the date of filing the refund application, which in the present case is 25.07.2006 which is admitted in the SCN itself.
The appellant is entitled to interest after expiry of three months from 25.07.2006 till 21.12.2018 when the refund was sanctioned - Appeal disposed off.
-
2019 (12) TMI 714 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Area based exemption - Classification of goods - resins - resins are captively consumed by the appellants namely Phenol Formaldehyde (PF), Urea Formaldehyde (UF), Melamine Formaldehyde (MF) used to manufacture plain and pre-laminated particle boards or laminates - whether classifiable under Tariff Heading 3909 or 3506 of the Central Excise Tariff Act or not? - benefit of N/N. 50/2003- CE dt. 10.06.2003.
HELD THAT:- As it has been clarified by Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, the said resins do qualify under Tariff Heading 3506 of the Central Excise Tariff Act; therefore, the resins in question, which are captively manufactured by the appellants having merit classification under Tariff Heading 3506 - The items classified under Tariff Heading 3506 are entitled for benefit of exemption Notification No. 50/2003-CE dt. 10.06.2003; therefore, the appellants are entitled to exemption under Notification No. 50/2003- CE dt. 10.06.2003 for the items in question which have been captively consumed by the appellants to manufacture laminates, plywood, boards etc. Therefore, no duty is payable by the appellants.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2019 (12) TMI 713 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Clandestine removal - shortage of finished goods as well as raw material - Can duty be demanded on the raw material found short during the course of investigation or not? - HELD THAT:- Admittedly duty has been demanded from the appellant on shortage of raw material, the said raw material is not manufactured by the appellant and in terms of Section 3 of Central Excise Act, 1944, duty is payable on the goods manufactured by the assessee. Admittedly these goods have not been manufactured by the appellant, therefore, no duty can be demanded from the appellant on shortage of raw material. At the most, the Cenvat credit can be asked to reverse which is not the case of Revenue. The said mistake done by the Revenue cannot be rectified at this stage - the demand of duty in shortage of raw material is set aside.
Merely shortage recorded during the course of investigation finished goods, can duty be demanded without further investigation or not? - HELD THAT:- As the value adopted for the clandestine removal of finished goods no explanation has been given by the Revenue as how they have calculated the price of the finished goods @ ₹ 50,000 /MT for hex nut and ₹ 50, 000/ MT for hex bolt. In the absence of any evidence placed on record with regard to that, the duty paid by the appellant of ₹ 1,04,500 is taken to be corrected as the issuance of these invoices have not been disputed by the Revenue before issuance of the show cause notice.
Penalty - HELD THAT:- In the case of Anand Founders & Engineers [ 2015 (11) TMI 1166 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT ], the jurisdictional Hon’ble High Court has taken a contrary view holding that without further investigation, the penalty cannot be imposed, therefore, relying on the decision of the jurisdictional Hon’ble High Court - the penalty cannot be imposed on the appellant.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2019 (12) TMI 712 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Refund of CENVAT Credit - inputs and services in question for export - rejection on the ground that as per the said notification the appellant is required to reverse Cenvat credit availed on the services in question before filing the refund claim - Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012-ST dt. 18.06.2012 - HELD THAT:- The issue decided in the case of M/S. FRESENIUS KABI ONCOLOGY LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CGST, GURUGRAM [2019 (11) TMI 1264 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] where on similar issue refund was allowed.
It is also not disputed that the appellant has not reversed Cenvat credit.
The appellant is entitled to claim the refund as filed by them - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2019 (12) TMI 711 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
CENVAT credit - input/capital goods - TMT Bars - credit denied on the ground that the TMT bars are not “inputs” or “capital goods” for the appellant but are final products which they purchased and further traded - Rule 16(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - reversal of credit on the goods that were brought into the factory - revenue neutrality.
Whether finished goods brought into the factory from outside would entitle the manufacturer to take Cenvat credit or otherwise? - HELD THAT:- This issue is no longer res integra as it has been decided in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR-I VERSUS ICEBERG FOODS LTD. [2010 (3) TMI 987 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] and COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ALLAHABAD VERSUS DEY’S MEDICAL (P) LTD. [2009 (12) TMI 387 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] that Cenvat credit is not admissible on the final products brought into the factory. It has also been decided that the provisions of Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 apply to goods which are brought back into the factory for processing, re-conditioning, etc., and not to final products brought in for sale.
There are no provision, whatsoever, under CCR, 2004 to allow any manufacturer to avail Cenvat credit on the final products purchased by them from one party and sold to another. CCR provide for credit of duty paid on inputs and capital goods and service tax paid on input services. Undisputedly, the TMT bars in question do not fall under any of these categories. In the absence of any explicit legal provisions for availment of Cenvat credit, the appellant is not entitled to Cenvat credit on TMT bars.
Applicability of rule 16 of CER - HELD THAT:- Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 do not apply to cases where goods are brought into the factory for resale - This rule applies only to cases where the goods are used for repairing, re-conditioning, etc.
Revenue neutrality - HELD THAT:- In the scheme of Cenvat or VAT or present day GST, all taxes paid at various levels get set off at the next level except at the final stage where the customer pays the tax and bears its burden. However, this does not give anyone freedom to choose not to pay their duties or take credit in violation of the Act or rules putting forth the argument that such non payment would be revenue neutral because their customers who would have taken the Cenvat credit will not do so now - Fiscal statutes must be interpreted strictly as they are drafted without an intendment.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2019 (12) TMI 640 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Clandestine removal - admissibility of statements of co-noticees - statements of noticees recorded u/ s 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not bear the signatures of the officials who recorded the statements despite the fact that the same noticees had confirmed their statements in their subsequent statements also recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal should have undertaken a more thorough scrutiny of the statements of the parties and other witnesses recorded by the officers of the appellant. The Tribunal being the last fact finding authority could have called upon the appellant to disclose as to which of the Officers has recorded the statements under Section 14 and to ascertain, as to whether or not, they were authorised to record such statements. The Tribunal should have also appreciated the reasoning given by the Adjudicating Authority that the earlier statements – though not bearing the signatures of the Officer who recorded the same, stood incorporated in the subsequent statement made by the same person when he affirmed the fact that his statements was so recorded.
Matter remanded back to the Tribunal for re-appreciation of the evidence - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2019 (12) TMI 639 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Demand of duty without proper classification of goods in dispute - Manufactured product, Vermax 002 and Vermax 004 - scope of SCN - Chargeable to service tax or not - HELD THAT:- The appellants were paying duty on the said goods till 30/06/2006. However, were simultaneously disputing the leviability of duty. On the advice of the consultant, they stopped paying duty on such goods from 01/07/2006 and started availing exemption. The raw material used by them for the manufacture of the aforesaid articles was co-mingled oil, which was classifiable under heading 2709. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant which sought to confirm the demand of duty without specifying the heading under which the said product Vermax 002 and Vermax 004 are classifiable. The appellants sought the correct classification in their reply to the Order in Original.
It is seen that the Show cause notice does not exactly classify the product. In show cause notice, there is no allegation seeking to change the classification claimed by the appellant. There a vague reference to chapter heading 2710 in the chemical examiner’s report but there is nothing in the notice alleging that why the goods could not be classified under heading 2709. The notice simply seeks to appropriate the duty already paid by the appellant under protest.
It is seen that in the Show Cause Notice there is no allegation as to why the classification claimed by the appellant viz 2709 should not be changed. And it also does not suggest why the goods should be classified under any particular heading.
Thus, it is apparent that the appellants have been rightly pointing out that no demand can be made without classifying the finished products sought to be levied to tax. It is seen from the orders of lower authorities that they have only examined why the product is not classifiable under chapter heading 2709 sought by the appellant but none of them deal with the issue as to where the goods should have been classified or what should be a correct classification of goods. There is no allegation in the show cause notice seeking to change the classification of goods and there are no findings to that effect.
Revenue cannot seek to demand duty without first classifying the goods under any particular heading. In any case, the burden of proving of classification lies on Revenue. The entire case of Revenue is that the goods are not classifiable under 2709. The Revenue has failed to establish under which heading goods are classifiable.
The appeal of Revenue seeking impose redemption fine for enhancement of penalty is dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2019 (12) TMI 638 - CESTAT MUMBAI
CENVAT Credit - duty paying invoices - credit taken on the basis of triplicate and quadruplicate copy of invoices - whether credit taken on the basis of triplicate and quadruplicate copy of invoices is deniable under the fact that duty paid character, receipt of inputs and its utilisation and payment of output tax on final product is not in dispute? - time limitation - Time Limitation - whether SCN dated 10.07.1997 for the disputed period September, 1996 is barred by limitation in the absence of any allegation of suppression of facts, or mis-statement etc.?
HELD THAT:- There is no allegation of any contumacious conduct, suppression of facts or any fraudulent conduct on the part of the appellant. Further, there is no allegation of non receipt of goods by the appellant in respect of which modvat credit was taken. The show cause notice dated 10.07.1997 for the alleged violation relating to the period September, 1996 was admittedly issued beyond the normal period of limitation (six months) from the date of filing of the return. Under Rule 57GG(10) of Central Excise Rules, registered dealer was required to file the monthly return within seven days from the close of each month alongwith the requisite documents.
There is no case of deliberate defiance made out against the appellant. Further, the appellant is a Public Sector Undertaking and thus there is no element of taking credit wrongly for personal gain. Further, the ground of limitation was not taken in the earlier round of appeal, however, the same is taken for the first time before the Tribunal. As the question of law arises from the facts on record, the said ground is entertained by this Tribunal.
The SCN is bad for invoking the extended period of limitation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2019 (12) TMI 637 - CESTAT MUMBAI
CENVAT Credit - input services - outward GTA services - period from 1-4-2005 to 31-3-2007 - HELD THAT:- Cenvat credit on outward GTS service was admissible since in the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM VERSUS M/S. VASAVADATTA CEMENTS LTD. [2018 (3) TMI 993 - SUPREME COURT], it was observed that tax paid on transportation of final products from the place of removal upto the first point may it be depot or the customer’s place has to be allowed.
The ground of rejection of admissibility of such Cenvat Credit on outward GTA by the adjudicating authority and its confirmation by the Commissioner (Appeals) was the want of documents by way of additional evidence to justify that transfer of goods occurred at the customers’ place to bring the case of the appellant within the conditions stipulated in CBSC Circular dated 23-08-2007, whereas show cause Notice itself confirmed that the transportation of goods from the point of manufacturer up to the place of removal (para 4) had occurred which went to the knowledge of respondent department during the course of CERA Audit conducted on the record of the assesse (para-2 of show cause-cum-demand Notice dated. 24-3-2010).
Such rejection of appeal on narrow technical consideration by the Commissioner (Appeals) is unsupported by the principle of fair justice and good conscience - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2019 (12) TMI 636 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Method of Valuation - Job-work - clearance of ‘set-top-boxes’ - applicability of rule 6 or rule 10A of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable goods) Rules, 2000 - Interpretation of statute - definition of ‘job-worker’ was intended to be interpreted for application of rule 10A of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excise Goods) Rules, 2000.
HELD THAT:- The issue of valuation of goods in the hands of ‘job-worker’ is one which is vexed the Tribunal and central excise authorities for long. It is obvious that in situations of the manufacture having been contracted out to specialists the declared value is not necessarily the base for determining the duty liability. The decisions, pertaining to job-workers and their excisability, and subsequently, the assessments, were rendered for the period before the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 came into force - The blurring of distinction between ‘job-worker’ and ‘principal manufacturer’, except for determination of commercial equation, reduced the valuation issues in the hands of principal manufacturer to conformity with ‘place of removal’. The belated interpolation of rule 10A in the said Rules also points out to the same want of definition.
In effect, a ‘job-worker’ works on raw materials supplied by the ‘principal manufacturer’ and is denied an option to sell the goods that emerge thereby and, in that context, the liability fastened on to someone, other than the manufacturer, on the basis of contract of price. It is seen from the records that on a former occasion when the taxability of ‘set-top-boxes’ and non-inclusion of the value of material supplied therewith, rule 6 of the said Rules was held to be appropriate in accordance with rule 10A - The job-worker has been held to be a ‘manufacturer’ on behalf of ‘principal-manufacturer’ and the supply of inputs for goods by either the ‘principal-manufacturer’ or any other person authorized by him, to suffice as ‘job-worker’.
The definition of ‘job-worker’, as incorporated in the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 would not cover the transactions, as well as the activities, that characteristic occur in the present dispute - Resort to rule 10A of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 is, therefore, not legal and proper.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2019 (12) TMI 635 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Valuation - manufacturer of ‘sugar and sugar confectionery’ and ‘chocolates and other food preparations’ - packages, bearing the inscription ‘For Industrial Use/Institutional Use As Raw Material Not For Retail Sale’, were also being sold to ultimate consumers - diversion of goods claimed to have been intended for industrial or institutional use - section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 - time limitation.
HELD THAT:- The statutory authorities for enforcement of Legal Metrology Act, 2011 have not initiated any action against the appellant herein. The contents, or lack thereof, in the returns prescribed under Central Excise Rules, 2000 does not find, a place in the impugned order or the show cause notice.
Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- Limitation is to be decided on the facts of each case. The appellate authorities can only adjudge whether the facts have been appreciated properly and applied against established law. The adjudicating authority does not appear to have applied its mind to this essential aspect that has a bearing on the outcome of the process initiated by the show cause notice - it is considered appropriate to set aside the impugned order and matter remanded back to the original authority for a fresh decision on this sole aspect after granting an opportunity to the appellant to be heard on all the submissions.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2019 (12) TMI 634 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Classification of goods - MV Royale Floatal - the assessee had sought classification under heading 8905 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tarif Act, 1985 and, against the proposal in the show cause notice to classify it under heading no. 8903, the adjudicating authority found it appropriate that heading no. 8901 should be adopted - to be classified under heading no. 8903 9990, or under heading no. 8901 9000? - benefit of N/N. 12/2013-CE dated 1st March 2013.
HELD THAT:- The fine line of distinction between opulence and pleasurable degeneracy may pose a dilemma for the moralist but, in the absence of such considerations in ascertainment of rate of duty in the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, insistence upon classification on perception or usage would be tantamount to insinuating personal values which, while permissible in Legislative enactments, is to be eschewed in tax enforcement.
The issue decided in the case of SHRI ASHOK KHETRAPAL, M/S GOA COASTAL RESORTS & RECREATION PVT. LTD. VERSUS CC JAMNAGAR [2014 (4) TMI 421 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] where it was held that Casino vessel POG imported by the importer is principally designed to carry passengers and has been correctly assessed under CTH 8901.
In the light of the decision in re Ashok Khetrapal and the absence of other binding precedent on the classification of ‘casino vessels’ as ‘pleasure boats’, we are not required to examine the other submissions based on other decisions.
Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2019 (12) TMI 620 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Clandestine removal - excess usage of raw material Sponge Iron, than mentioned - entire demand is based on the closing balances shown in the ER-1 and ER-6 return - The entire SCN is based on inconsistency and the department is taking two stands while calculating the duty on the said finished goods. The department is demanding duty on TMT Bars and Slag only whereas no demand in respect of ‘runners and risers’ and ‘M.S scrap’ was raised in the present SCN.
HELD THAT:- The entire demand is based on the yield of production of M.S Ingot which is further used in the manufacturing of TMT Bars. The yield of production was in respect of only a particular month which was uniformly applied for entire demand of Central Excise Duty. At no point or stage, Department has able to prove that the appellant during the relevant period was having electricity connection to manufacture M.S Ingots and TMT Bars. It is an admitted fact that for the period the demand has been raised, the appellant did not have any power connection. Department has also failed to produce that there is any other alternate source of power to manufacture those goods. In such a situation, it is very clear that the entire demand is based on mere average yield of production and no concrete evidence to manufacture the alleged goods has been brought on the record by the department. The statement which has been relied upon by the department is only in respect of month of June 2013 which is uniformly applied for calculating the demand.
It is a well settled principle of law that charges of clandestine removal cannot be based on series of assumptions and presumptions whereas should be based on evidences like unaccounted purchase of raw materials, receipt and consumption of raw materials, freight payment for movement of such raw material, dis-proportionate power consumption, capacity utilization and labor employed, unaccounted sales proceeds and substantial cash recovery from office or factory premises, and so on - In the present case, these clinching evidences are absolutely missing and therefore charges of clandestine removal cannot be held sustainable for demand of ₹ 2,86,17,242.
Demand of ₹ 48,75,834/- which is based on the invoices issued by the appellant during the period 08.01.2014 to 10.01.2014 for a quantity of 1059.920 - HELD THAT:- The said demand is confirmed by the Ld. Commissioner merely on the ground that some of the vehicle number shown in the invoices are incapable of transporting the alleged goods. The said conclusion was drawn by the Ld. Commissioner only citing the few incidents, wherein number of cases no inquiries were made either from the transporters or from the recipients of the goods. Out of 27 transporters, statements of only 7 transporters were recorded by the officers and only 2 appeared for their cross-examination - In such a scenario, we are inclined to accept the contention of the appellant that in absence of the statements of the recipients of the goods and cross-examination of all the transporters whose statements were recorded, it cannot be concluded that no goods were cleared from the appellant’s premises.
In absence of sufficient evidences which are essential to prove the charges of clandestine manufacture and its removal from the factory of the appellant, the demand which are based on the invoices issued by the appellant during the period of 08.01.2014 to 10.01.2014 is also not maintainable and hence liable to be set aside.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2019 (12) TMI 616 - CESTAT BANGALORE
CENVAT Credit - stock transfer - shifting of input from one unit to another - the appellant shifted inputs and certain capital goods from Unit-II to Unit-I for manufacture of dutiable final products - revenue neutrality - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Initially the appellant set up Unit-II for manufacture of Control Valves but subsequently, found that the space is inadequate and therefore, he set up another unit which is Unit-I adjacent to Unit-II and transferred some of the inputs and capital goods from Unit-II to Unit-I as per the advice given by the department. The appellant transferred the input and capital goods by raising invoice and debited duty in Unit-II and took credit of the same in Unit-I in terms of Rule 3(5) of the CCR.
Both debit and credit entries made by both the units are reflected in the ER-1 returns and due intimation was given to the department by the appellant vide their letter dated 14.6.2010. Further, it is a case of simply stock transfer. Therefore, the restriction as provided in Rule 9(1)(b) of CCR is not applicable because the appellant has not availed credit on supplementary invoices. The appellant has paid the duty voluntarily in terms of Section 11A(2B) of the Central Excise Act on being pointed out by the Preventive Officers and took the credit of the same in Unit-I in terms of Rule 3 of the CCR.
Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- All the facts from the beginning were in the knowledge of the department and specific intimation was also given by the appellant vide its letter dated 14.6.2010 and therefore, invoking extended period of limitation to confirm the demand is not tenable in law. Therefore, the entire demand is also barred by limitation as the period of dispute is from 1.8.2008 to 10.09.2008 but the show-cause notice was issued on 4.5.2011 by invoking extended period of limitation alleging suppression.
The impugned order is not sustainable on merit as well as on limitation - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2019 (12) TMI 614 - CESTAT BANGALORE
CENVAT Credit - input services - erection, commissioning and installation services - consultancy service - site supervision in connection with the setting up of integrated steel plant services - HELD THAT:- The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of sponge iron, MS billets and other iron and steel items falling under Chapter 72 of the CETA, 1985. Appellant is already having a plant for manufacture of sponge iron but they are setting up a integrated steel plant within the same premises and for that setting up, they have availed various input services provided by M/s. Mecon Ltd. who are engaged in consultancy for detailed engineering and erection, commissioning and installation.
The impugned services for which CENVAT credit has been availed by the appellant do not fall in the exclusion clause as provided under Rule 2(l). Further, the services availed in the present case is relating to engineering, design, erection and commissioning, installation and not related to civil construction or not related to works contract service used for laying foundation for support of capital goods.
Credit allowed - appeal allowed on merits, the question of limitation not considered - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2019 (12) TMI 606 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
CENVAT Credit - common input services used for manufacture of dutiable and exempted products - non-maintenance of separate records - case of the department is that since the common input service on which credit was availed was used in respect of trading turn over, appellant is required to pay 6% in terms of Rule 6(3) - HELD THAT:- Though the appellant had availed Cenvat Credit on common input service which is attributed to both dutiable manufacturing goods as well as the trading activity, but, after the adjudication of the Show Cause Notice the appellant have reversed Cenvat Credit along with the interest attributed to trading activity. With this fact the situation became as if no Cenvat Credit was taken right from the date of taking credit by the appellant.
It is observed that though it is the appellants claim that the Cenvat Credit attributed to the trading activity along with interest has been paid and the copy of Cenvat account for the credit reversal as well as challan for the payment of interest has been enclosed. Considering this, the demand of 6% is not sustainable.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2019 (12) TMI 604 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
CENVAT Credit - common input services used in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted product - non-maintenance of separate records - Rule 6(3) of CCR - HELD THAT:- Though the appellant had availed Cenvat Credit on common input service which is attributed to both dutiable manufacturing goods as well as the trading activity, but, after the adjudication of the Show Cause Notice the appellant have reversed Cenvat Credit along with the interest attributed to trading activity. With this fact the situation became as if no Cenvat Credit was taken right from the date of taking credit by the appellant.
This tribunal in various cases held that once the Cenvat Credit along with interest has been paid, no demand of 6% can be made.
Demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|
