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 →

Commissioner of Central Excise And Others Versus M/s UP Telelinks And Others

2015 (10) TMI 1156 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Reversal of CENVAT Credit - Trading activity - Held that:- In the impugned order, none of the lower authorities have considered the defence taken by the assessee that they have cleared inputs as such and no verification has been done to that effect whether the assessee has cleared inputs as such or was involved in the activity of trading. Show cause notice has been issued only on the basis of figures shown in the balance sheet. For removal of inputs as such, Rule 3(5) clearly states that if inpu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

set of facts, Cenvat credit taken by the assessee on the input which are cleared as such, is attributable to proportionate reversal is not supported by cogent reasons. Therefore, as per the provisions of Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 the assessee was to reverse the Cenvat credit availed on inputs cleared as such. Therefore, I hold that assessee is not required to pay any amount equivalent to 6% /8% of the value of inputs cleared as such or reversal of proportional credit attributable t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rse of audit, it was found that during the period 2007-2008, 2010-2011, it was revealed that appellant is engaged in the activity of trading also. The assessee was required to reverse the Cenvat credit availed on these inputs/ goods involved in the trading activity and reversed Cenvat credit availed on these goods. Revenue is of the view that as trading activity is an exempted service as per the provisions of Rule 2(e) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as amended w.e.f. 1.4.2011. Therefore assessee w .....

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 assessee is required to reverse the proportionate credit attributable to trading activity as per the Rules as amended w.e.f. 1.4.2011. Against such order, both the parties are in appeal, Revenue is in appeal on the ground that formula adopted by learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not correct and assessee is in appeal on the ground that as trading activity is already declared as exempted input from 1.4.2011 and prior to that there were not required to reverse the proportionate credit. 4. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is contention he relied on the decision of CCE, Chandigarh I vs. Punjab steels [2010 (260) ELT 521 (P&H)]; A R Casting (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, Chandigarh [2010 (256) ELT 420 (Tri-Del)]; and Bansal Alloys & Metals Ltd. vs. CCE, Chandigarh [2010 (250) ELT 529 (Tri-Del)]. 6. Learned AR opposed this contention of the learned Counsel and submits that as per Rule 2(e) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 by a notification issued on 1.4.2011 and since this amending notification expands the scope of the t .....

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