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 →

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Versus M/s Pan Electronics India Ltd

2015 (10) TMI 1034 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Imposition of penalty - Reversal of CENVAT Credit - cenvat credit on the inputs LDO was not received in their factory but diverted to sister unit - Held that:- It is evident that the adjudicating authority has dropped the entire proceedings, it is only on appeal by the Revenue, the Commissioner (Appeals) has restored the demand of ₹ 4,59,611/- for the first time. Therefore, the LAA has rightly held that the respondents are eligible for reduced penalty within 30 days. Therefore, I do not fi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nkararaman, Adv. ORDER Per: R Periasami: Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order dated 31.07.2007, against non imposition of equal penalty. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the show cause notice dated 22.01.2003 was issued to the respondents demanding reversal of cenvat credit on the inputs LDO was not received in their factory but diverted to their sister unit. The Additional Commissioner in his order No. 28/03 dated 30.09.2003 confirmed the entire demand of ₹ 11,40,01 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that the inputs have been duly received inside the factory and accounted, as per the Cenvat Credit Rules. 3. Revenue preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds that adjudicating authority erred in dropping the entire demand of reversal of credit whereas the respondents are liable to reverse the cenvat credit availed on the inputs used in the generation of electricity diverted to other units. The Appellate Authority set aside the impugned order and allowed the Revenue appe .....

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 grounds of appeal and relied on the following case laws in support of his contention: 1. CCE, Delhi-III Vs. Machino Montell (I) Ltd. 2006 (202) ELT 398 (P & H) 2. UOI Vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills 2009 (238) ELT 3 (S.C.) 5. On the other hand, the Ld. Advocate for the respondent reiterated the cross objections filed by them and relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CCE, Surat-1. Vs. Rita Dyeing & Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. and submits .....

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