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 Bajaj Healthcare Ltd Versus Commissioner Of Central Excise And Service Tax-Vadodara-I

2015 (10) TMI 878 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

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 Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur (supra) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

IA 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 the issue involved in this appeal is regardi .....

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. 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 Cause Notice. Learned Advocate argued that per .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 with respect to items used in the manufactur .....

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