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 →

M/s Shree Narmada Khand, Udyog Sahakari Mandli Ltd Versus Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Surat-II

2015 (10) TMI 1686 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Admissibility of CENVAT Credit - Capital goods - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Held that:- Once a certificate from an appropriate and competent authority has been furnished by the Appellant, then it is not open to the Adjudicating authority to question that certificate unless another opinion from an expert is obtained which is contrary to the certificate given by the Appellant. The stand of the Appellant before the Adjudicating authority right from the beginning is that the input .....

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 period cannot be invoked as the same issue was settled by the Larger Bench judgment in the case of Vandana Global Ltd Vs CCE Raipur (2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB)). Under the circumstances, the extended period cannot be invoked against the Appellant and no penalty can be imposed under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No.E/442/2012 - Order No. A/10765 / 2015 - Dated:- 8-6-2015 - MR. H.K. THAKUR, J. For The Appellant: Shri Vinay Kans .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

argued that these items are used in the manufacture/fabrication of Process Vessels, Storage Tanks, Oliver, Crystalizer, Vacuum Pan, Vapour Line Juicer Heater, Sulphur Furnace etc which are capital goods and are covered within the definition of input given under Rule 2(k) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Learned Advocate relied upon the case law of Hindustan Zinc Ltd Vs CCE [2005 (188) ELT 313 (T)] and CCE Vs Madras Cements Ltd [2006 (203) ELT 605 (T)] to strongly argue that the inputs are used in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

inputs mentioned above are not used for making support structure for the machines. The learned Advocate also argued that the show cause notice pertains to the period April 2005 to October 2009, is time barred as credit taking entries are upto 07.03.2009, whereas the show cause notice was issued on 29.03.2010 3. Shri S.K. Shukla, Authorised Representative appearing on behalf of the Revenue made the Bench go through the Paras 21, 21.1 & 21.2 of the Order-in-Original passed by the Adjudicating .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ty, to drive home the point that the irregular CENVAT Credit taken by the Appellant was detected during the Audit by the officers of Central Excise and that the extended period of five years is applicable. 4. Heard both the sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in the present proceedings is with respect to the admissibility of CENVAT Credit on items like C.S. Bars, M.S. Channels/Angles/Plates, HR Coils/Steel Plates etc. It is the case of the Appellant that these materials are us .....

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