Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (5) TMI 97 - CESTAT CHENNAI

2015 (5) TMI 97 - CESTAT CHENNAI - TMI - Denial of cenvat credit - Revenue put an allegation that suppliers had included the freight and insurance charges upto the point of delivery and passed on higher duty amount. - Held that:- As the issue is identical and the input suppliers are also same, the ratio of the above Hon'ble High Court order is applicable to the facts of the present case. By respectfully following the ratio of the decisions rendered in Hon ble Tribunal s decision (2008 (12) T .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

assessee. - Appeal No.E/636/2009, Appeal No. E/82/2010, Appeal No.E/83/2010 - Final Order No.40444-40446/2015 - Dated:- 24-4-2015 - Hon ble Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member,J. For the Appellants : Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri M. Rammohan Rao, DC (AR) ORDER As the issue involved in these appeals is common, all these appeals are taken up together for disposal. The appeals are arising out of three separate impugned Orders-in-Appeals passed by Commissioner of Cent .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

demanding cenvat credit of ₹ 16,13,292/- availed on the invoices issued by M/s. Guwahati Carbon Ltd. and ₹ 1,40,078 /-credit availed in respect of invoices issued by M/s. Brahmaputra Carbon Ltd. on the ground that suppliers had included the freight and insurance charges upto the point of delivery and passed on higher duty amount. The adjudicating authority in his order dt. 7.1.2009 confirmed the demand of ₹ 17,53,370/- with interest and imposed equivalent penalty on Appellant N .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nsaction value by relying on Commissioner (Appeals) order dt. 15.6.2005 passed in respect of two suppliers (appellant No.2 & 3 herein). On appeal by the appellants, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected their appeals and upheld OIO by relying on the Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal's decision in the case of CCE Shillong Vs Guwahati Carbon & Another reported in 2009 (93) RLT 353 (CESTAT-KOL). Hence the present appeals. 3. Ld. Advocate for the appellants submit that they have complied .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

credit availed and the documents being disclosed to the department. He further submits that any subsequent reassessment made at the supplier's end cannot be reopened at the receiver's end. Once the cenvat credit has been validly availed on the documents, the jurisdictional authority at recipient side cannot dispute on the change of classification or rate of duty. He further submits that they have availed credit on the duty paid documents and the duty paid nature is not under dispute and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ee's appeal. In the case of DCM Engineering Products [2009 (245) ELT 785 (Tri._Del.), the appeal filed by Revenue was dismissed by the Tribunal and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order. He further submits that Tribunal s order was upheld by Hon ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana. He also relied Board s circular dt. 17.11.2008. He submits that the appellants as well as the suppliers are not liable for any penalty. Regarding Appellants 2 & 3, he submits that both the adjudicating auth .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ible only on the excise duty leviable and paid on the inputs. If once it is proved that excise duty is not leviable on the value, appellant cannot avail the credit it was not held as duty. He relied on Tribunal s decision in the case of CCE Shillong Vs Guwahati Carbon Ltd. - 2009 (243) ELT 307 (Tri.-Kolkata) and submits that once it has been held that duty has been erroneously paid by the supplier on the freight and insurance, the appellant-manufacturer is not entitled for the cenvat credit. The .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

art of the assessable value for payment of central excise duty by the assessees. As stated by the learned counsel that the identical proceedings were also initiated by the Allahabad and Jalandar Commissionerates against the assessees who also received the inputs from the said suppliers. The Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal at Delhi decided the issue in the following cases. In the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs CCE Allahabad (supra), and in the case of CCE Jalandar Vs DCM Engineering Products ( .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. As such we fully agree with the ld. Advocate that the issue stand exclusively decided by the above referred decision and the observations made by the Tribunal in the case ofC.C.E., Shillong vs. M/s Guwahati Carbons Ltd. - 2009 (243) ELT 307 (Tri.-Cal.), as regards the entitlement of credit by the input recipient cannot be adopted. We also agree with the ld. Advocate that such observations are general in nature and are not relatable to the issues before the Tribunal. The Tribunal was required t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version