GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (10) TMI 1208 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2015 (10) TMI 1208 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - Denial of CENVAT Credit - whether the appellant is entitled to take Cenvat credit on the inputs supplied by manufacturer supplier, a 100% EOU through dealer on which the duty has been paid and goods had been received by the appellant or not - Held that:- It is admitted fact that appellant have received the goods on which duty has been paid by the manufacture-supplier. Therefore, the appellant has complied with the condition of notification No. 23/03 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

erefore, the case relied upon by the learned AR have no relevance to the facts of the case. Moreover, the decision of Balakrishna Industries Ltd.(2015 (1) TMI 938 - CESTAT NEW DELHI) , the facts were similar to the facts of this case. In that case also the manufacturer-supplier has taken the benefit of exemption notification No. 44/2001 which was not entitled to and cleared the goods to the manufacturer-supplier which took the Cenvat credit and Revenue sought to deny the said credit Ultimately, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Ashok Jindal, J. For The Appellant : Shri S K Pahwa, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri R K Mishra Per Ashok Jindal : The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order denying the input credit service to them. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is manufacturer of PET bottles. The appellant received polyethylene terepthalate resin from M/s. South Asian Petrochem Ltd. through M/s. Eesha Trading Company, a registered dealer. The appellant availed the Cenvat Credit on the invoices .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t. Both the lower authorities have denied the Cenvat credit to the appellant. Consequently, the duty demand along with interest was confirmed. Equivalent amount of penalty was also imposed. Aggrieved from the said order, appellant is before me. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that if the manufacturer supplier has not complied with the condition of notification for availing exemption, appellant is not concerned with them. In fact as per Rule 9(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

LT 488 (SC)]. 4. On the other hand, learned AR opposed the contention of the learned Counsel and submits that the manufacturer-supplier has not complied with the condition of notification and imported goods had been used in the manufacturing of the inputs provided to the appellant which the supplier cannot do. Thus, character of goods involved is bad and therefore, appellant cannot take Cenvat credit thereon. To support his contention, he relied on the decision of CCE, Indore vs. S K Industries .....

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