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

2015 (10) TMI 1152 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

2015 (10) TMI 1152 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - TMI - 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Account unutilized. The Commissioner (Appeals) 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 0.1.19 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture 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. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Cenvat credit lying in their Cenvat account, which 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 .....

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. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal 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 .....

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