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

2015 (10) TMI 878 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

2015 (10) TMI 878 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - TMI - Denial of CENVAT Credit - Invocation of extended period of limitation - whether CENVAT credit on items like Angles, channels, joints, HR Sheets, Plates, CRSS sheets in coils, CTD and Round bars loose etc., will be admissible to the appellant or not - Held that:- Extended period cannot be invoked in a situation when conflicting views were available on a subject, which was finally settled by Larger Bench of CESTAT in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. vs C .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eal has been filed by the appellant against OIA No. SRP/467/VDR-I/2013 Dated 27.02.2013 under which first appellate authority has upheld OIO No. D/26/Dn-I/11-12 Dated 24.01.2012. Adjudicating Authority has confirmed a demand of ₹ 3,33,087/- alongwith interest, and also imposed equivalent penalty upon the appellant under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 readwith Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Shri Ajay Singh, (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ourt decision in the case of India Cements Ltd. vs CESTAT, Chennai ]2015 (321) E.L.T. 209 (Mad.)]. Learned Advocate argued that these items are used for making structures around the plant and has to be considered as accessories for the capital goods of Chapter 84 and 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act and will be covered by Rule 2 (a) (A) (iii) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. However, it was argued by the Learned Advocate that at present the case is being agitating on time barred nature of Show C .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lly decided the issue in 2010. That once the matter is decided by the Larger Bench due to conflicting case laws then for the earlier period intention to evade payment of duty or taking wrong credit cannot be attributed on the part of the appellant and extended period cannot be invoked. 3. Sh. Govind Jha (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Saraswati Sugar Mills vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III - 5295 OF 2003 has decided that credit .....

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