Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Special Tools (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad

2015 (9) TMI 772 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

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 defective goods for rectification was not the same which were adopted by 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

tigation 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 Appellant : A. P. Mathur For the Respondent : S. S. C., Ashok Singh ORDE .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aken 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 supports the impugned order of the Tribunal. Briefly stated the facts of 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

ional 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 order in original No.13/98 dated 20.2.1998, the Modvat credit of ₹ 9 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nal 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 be eligible for the modvat credit in question. The appellants accepted .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e 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 before the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Ghazibad, whic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 as they made a request before the adjudicating authority in this regard, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ule 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 discussion made above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order and 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

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version