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 →

Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-I

2015 (10) TMI 1692 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Reversal of input service credit - Credit used for both exempted and dutiable final products under rule 6(3) (b) of CCR - Held that:- Adjudicating authority and the authority to decide the application is happened to be one and the same jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise. The adjudicating authority ought to have considered their application before deciding the SCN. On perusal of the application dt. 19.8.2010, appellants have already paid an amount of ₹ 19,17,821/- and interest of .....

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 order is set aside - Decided in favour fo assessee. - Appeal No. E/S/41017/2014 & E/40773/2014 - Final Order No. 40621/2015 - Dated:- 10-6-2015 - R. Periasami, Member (T) And P. K. Choudhary, Member (J),JJ. For the Appellant : Mr N Venkataraman, Sr. Adv For the Respondent : Mr B Balamurugan, AC (AR) ORDER Per: R Periasami: As the issue lies on a narrow compass, with the consent of both sides, after dispensing with predeposit, the main appeal itself is taken up. 2. The issue relates to reversal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

der Rule 15 (2) of CCR, 2004. 3. Ld. Senior Counsel representing for the appellant submits that as per para-5.1, pages 9,10 of the OIO, the adjudicating authority in his finding has held that input services in question covered in Annexure I & II to SCN were used by appellants exclusively in relation to manufacture of exempted goods and services utilized in fertilizer plant. Since the adjudicating authority conclusively held that these services are exclusively used in exempted final products, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

adjudicating authority proceeded with SCN and passed the impugned order. They filed the application with the same adjudicating authority and it is stated at para 8.1 of the impugned order that appellants have not obtained an order from the Commissioner on the application. The application is still pending before the very same adjudicating authority who has passed the impugned order. Since they have already reversed the entire credit along with interest, he pleaded for remand of the matter to 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

ell as dutiable goods as they have not maintained separate accounts. He also submits that application submitted by appellant was not brought to the knowledge of adjudicating authority. Therefore, he rightly demanded 8% & 10% of the value of exempted goods. He relied on the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in the case of CCE Thane Vs Nicholas Piramal (India) Ltd. - 2009 (244) ELT 321 (Bom.). 5. After hearing both sides, prima facie, we find that the issue relates to reversal of ce .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

proceedings. I find that obtaining of such an order involves a separate line compliance which has not been done by the assessee as of now, for me to consider the same in these proceedings. I also do not find it possible to set-off the amount of ₹ 21,54,969/- claimed to have been paid by the assessee towards the reversal of credit against the demand made in the show cause notice. I must therefore think that, in the absence of such a proof/reference before me, I am not in a position to cons .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of separate payment of 10% which is mandatory, it cannot be whittled down by reversal of equivalent credit. The above views are also held by the Hon'ble SC in the case of Balarpur Paper Industries Ltd. and/ relied upon by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore Vs. CESTAT, Chennai. In the light of the above, I am unable to accede to the request of the assessee to consider the amendment of Rule 6 and grant the consequent relief claimed u .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

3, appellants are not entitled for cenvat credit and they are liable to reverse the entire credit. If the appellants used the input services for both dutiable as well as exempted products as manufactured and cleared Phospho Gypsum on payment of duty, appellants are entitled to reverse proportionate credit as per retrospective amendment to Section 73 w.e.f. 10.9.2004 and they submitted application dt. 19.8.2010 before Commissioner of Central Excise immediately after retrospective amendment came i .....

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