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

2015 (9) TMI 772 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

2015 (9) TMI 772 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT - 2015 (324) E.L.T. 64 (All.) - Disallowance of MODVAT Credit - Whether Tribunal was justified in rejecting the alternative plea of the appellants that their claim ought to have been considered in terms of Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules 1944, merely because the same was not taken earlier - Held that:- Findings recorded in the order in original and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals ) that the process being carried out by the appellants on the de .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aise altogether a new plea before the Tribunal in the second round of litigation and that too contrary to their own stand taken before the Adjudicating Authority. Thus, the Tribunal has not committed any error of law in rejecting the alternate plea of the appellants. The impugned order of the Tribunal suffers from no infirmity. - Decided against assessee. - Central Excise Appeal No. - 75 of 2004 - Dated:- 6-8-2015 - Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala And Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, JJ. For 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

173H of the Central Excise Rules 1944, merely because the same was not taken earlier ?" Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has committed a manifest error of law in rejecting the alternate plea of the appellant that their claim ought to have been considered in terms of Rule 173-H of the erstwhile Central Excise Rule 1944 and it could not have been rejected merely on the ground that it was not claimed by the appellants earlier. Learned counsel for the respondent supp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t admissible and as such show cause notices were issued by the jurisdictional authority requiring the appellants to show cause as to why Modvat credit so taken by them amounting to ₹ 1,04,974.70 and ₹ 90,839.66 may not be disallowed in terms of the provisions of Rule 57A read with Rule 57-G of the Rules. By an order in original No.66/97 dated 28.10.1997, the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division-II, Ghaziabad disallowed the Modvat credit of ₹ 1,04,975/-. By another or .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hi, which were allowed by the Tribunal and the matter was remanded by final order No.A/186-187/01/NB dated 30.1.2001 for limited purpose of ascertaining as to whether defective parts returned by the appellants' Customers had, infact, been reprocessed by the appellants in their factory in the same manner as they used to process their raw-material for manufacture of their final products in the normal course and if it is found that the appellant's had undertaken such reprocessing, they will .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd knowledge about the process being carried out by the appellants on the goods in question received by them. The adjudicating authority, however, found that the same process was not being carried out by the appellants and the processing conducted by them for rectification did not amount to manufacture. Consequently, the Adjudicating authority disallowed the modvat credit vide order in original No.45-46 of 2001 dated 26.11.2001. Aggrieved with this order, the appellants preferred an appeal befor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ounsel has not contested the correctness of the findings recorded by the adjudicating authority that the processes being carried out by the appellants on the defective goods for rectification was not the same which were being adopted by them in the manufacture of their final products. That being so, the appellants had been rightly disallowed the modvat credit. The contention of the learned counsel that the claim of the appellants under Rule 173H should have been in the alternative consideration .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing detailed reasons and the grounds for considering their claim under Rule 173H. They only submitted flow charts in respect of the various processes that had been taken by them to rectify the defective goods, which was duly considered by the adjudicating authority, but no request for considering the claim under Rule 173H was ever filed. Therefore, for the first time at this stage, they cannot be permitted to urge for the consideration of their claim under the said Rule. In view of the discussio .....

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