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 →

Maruti Interior Products Private Limited Versus Commissioners of Central Excise Customs and Service Tax-Rajkot

2015 (10) TMI 1344 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Refund claim - Eligibility of CENVAT Credit - Duty paid under protest - Held that:- Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the Adjudicating Authority adjusted this amount on the consent of the appellant, and therefore, the appeal of the appellant cannot be accepted. In Appeal No. E/1544/2010, it is observed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellants had not contested the demand of ₹ 6,99,436.00/-. I find that the appellant contested the demand of the said amount by filing the refund c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eady allowed. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Appeal No : E/535,1544/2010 - Order No. 10456-10457/2015 - Dated:- 20-3-2015 - MR. P.K. DAS, J. For The Appellant : Shri P.V. Sheth Advocate For The Respondent : Shri. S.K. Shukla Authorised Representative Per: P.K. Das A common issue is involved in these appeals and therefore both are taken up together of disposal. 2. The relevant facts of the case in brief, are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Table Kitchen and House .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nputs and finished goods lying in their stock of Cenvat Credit at the time opting the exemption. The appellant in order to get the refund claim had given consent for adjustment of the said amount against the refund amount. Thereafter, Assistant Commissioner granted the refund claim after adjusting the said amount. By Order-in-original dated 18.09.2009, the Assistant Commissioner granted the cash refund of ₹ 1,42,30,292.00/- and appropriated an amount of ₹ 6,99,436.00/-, against the o .....

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. It has also claimed interest of ₹ 24,13,601.00/- in respect of duty paid under protest. They have also filed refund of ₹ 7,496.00/- lying balance in PLA. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claim of ₹ 6,99,436.00/- and the interest of ₹ 24,13,601/-, and sanctioned, refund claim of ₹ 7,496.00/-. The appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). By impugned order, dated 06.09.2010, Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal. The appellant .....

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