Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Indo Count Industries Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolhapur

2015 (8) TMI 830 - CESTAT MUMBAI

CENVAT Credit - SAD - Supplementary invoices - Clearance of raw material without payment of duty - Held that:- Present proceedings were initiated pursuant to the discrepancy noted by Revenue in the records of M/s MIRC Electronics. As the said issue was concluded in favour of M/s MIRC Electronics, no cause of action remains against the present appellant. As such I set aside the impugned order - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. E/928/09 - Dated:- 30-4-2015 - Anil Choudhary, Member (J),J .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. And show-cause notice dated 2/1/08 was issued alleging that the appellant availed CENVAT credit of Special Additional Duty (SAD) on the strength of supplementary invoices issued by M/s MIRC Electronics Limited and the said credit was not available to the appellant in view of the provisions contained in Rule 9(1)(b) read with Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 as the duty was paid by M/s MIRC, after detection of the case for non levy or short Levy, by reason .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

terest and further why not penalty be imposed under Rule 15 read with Section 11AC of the Act and the show-cause was adjudicated and the demand proposed in the show-cause notice was confirmed along with interest, besides imposing equal penalty by the adjudicating authority holding that the supplementary invoices issued by M/s MIRC are not valid documents to avail CENVAT credit in terms of provisions of Rule 9(1)(b). Being aggrieved the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

has also paid and had no role in the alleged omission by M/s MIRC, penalty was set aside. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal. 4. The Counsel for the appellant states that the dispute is no longer res integra as for the same matter, appeal have been allowed in the case of Mirc Electronics, Shri Mahesh K. Desai, Shri Janarthanam Remesh Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I, by this Tribunal vide order dated 20 th January, 2015 in appeal No. E/1351, 1352 & 1353/2007 - M .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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