GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (6) TMI 578 - CESTAT BENGLALORE

2015 (6) TMI 578 - CESTAT BENGLALORE - TMI - Denial of CENVAT Credit - sale of finished goods after repacking - Held that:- In the new factory, proper packing was undertaken, and goods were cleared on payment of duty by utilizing the CENVAT credit of duty paid at the time of shifting of goods. I find that even if the appellants have not followed the provisions of Rule correctly, it is only a technical omission on the part of the appellant and it cannot be said that there is revenue loss. Moreove .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

by the appellant is acceptable.

The second issue involved is the availment of CENVAT Credit by the appellant in respect of services which are utilized for trading as well as manufacturing. During the relevant period, the trading was not defined as a deemed service and therefore it can not be considered as an exempted service. Even though learned advocate offered to present detailed arguments on this issue, when it was pointed out that in the case of Orion Appliances Ltd., Vs CST Ahme .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d premises of the factory on payment of duty by raising nine invoices. In the new premises the credit of duty paid on the finished goods was taken and thereafter the same were cleared after repacking the same. On the ground that the process done amounts to manufacture, CENVAT credit availed by the appellant on the finished goods has been denied. It has also been held that appellant should have followed the procedure under Rule 10(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules. Other ground taken is that the inputs w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hifting of goods. I find that even if the appellants have not followed the provisions of Rule correctly, it is only a technical omission on the part of the appellant and it cannot be said that there is revenue loss. Moreover, the claim that appellants had done proper packing for the purpose of marketing has not been contradicted or there is no contrary finding. The only claim of the department is that the finished goods were cleared and there was no process undertaken on it and therefore, the CE .....

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