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 →

Bhilosa Tex N Twist Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs (Adjudication) -VAPI)

2015 (10) TMI 1152 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Denial of refund claim - Unutilized CENVAT Credit - Held that:- Assessee after depositing amount of ₹ 35,00,000.00 and ₹ 15,00,000.00 in the Govt. Account, they did not make any debit in their PLA account, towards the duty liability. Instead, they debited entire amount of ₹ 77,99,763.00 and ₹ 19,29,540.00 from their Cenvat Accounts i.e. RG23A Part II vide debit entry no. 6703 and 6704 dated 09.02.2005 against ₹ 77,99,763.00 and debit entry serial No. 203 & 205 dated .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

proceeded on the basis that they have already debited the amount in PLA. But, there was no much allegation in the Show Cause Notices and it is contrary to the adjudication order. It is revealed from the Show Cause Notice and adjudication order that the appellant credited there amounts in their PLA account, which were not debited. The Tribunal in the case of Bijalimoni Tea Estate following the both Circular Letter F. No. 202/24/72-CX. 6, dated 0.1.1978 held that refund claim of unutilized balanc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

anufacture of Texturised Polyster Filament Yarn classified under Chapter 54 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, through their two units. On 08.02.2005 the Central Excise Officers during their visit to the factory premises of both the units found that the appellants wrongly availed the exemption notification and they were required to pay an amount of duty ₹ 77,99,763.00 and ₹ 19,29,540.00 respectively by both the units. The appellant made a deposit of ₹ 35 La .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hich are contrary to Rule 5 of Cenvat credit Rules, 2004. Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claims of both the units. By the impugned orders, Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeals filed by the appellants. 3. The Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that they filed the refund of unutilized balance in PLA account. It is submitted that Show Cause Notices are proceeded on the basis that the amount of refund claims were lying in Cenvat Account. The Adjudicatin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in the case of Bijalimoni Tea Estate vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Siliguri 2007 (215) E.L.T. (Tri. - Kolkata). 4. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the appellants credited this amount in the PLA and again debited. 5. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find from the Adjudication order that after depositing amount of ₹ 35,00,000.00 and ₹ 15,00,000.00 in the Govt. Account .....

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