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 →

Ashok Leyland Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III

2015 (10) TMI 1695 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Reversal of modvat credit - credit availed on 57E certificates issued by the Customs for payment of CVD after the amendment of Section 57F (4A) w.e.f16.3.95 - ineligible document issued by the supplier who is not registered with Central Excise - Held that:- appellants have availed modvat credit of ₹ 1,14,005/- on three invoices all dated 6.8.96 issued by M/s. Bihar Alloys Steels Ltd. On perusal of the letter OC No.535/96-97 dt.30.7.96 issued by the jurisdictional Superintendent Range IX F .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nge and does not have a e.c.c. code number, they are eligible to remove the goods under their invoices based on which they party buying the said goods can take modvat credit. - invoice issued by the supplier who is exempted from taking registration is a valid document. Further, I find that there is no dispute on the payment of Central Excise duty on the inputs. Accordingly, the appellants are eligible for credit - demand of ₹ 19,50,097/-is upheld. Demand of reversal of modvat credit 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

e reversal of modvat credit of ₹ 20,72,452.55 irregularly availed by the appellant on various grounds. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the first OIA No.61/99 dt.30.3.1999 dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of predeposit against which appellant preferred appeal before this Tribunal and the Tribunal vide Final order No.661/2006 dt.28.7.2006 remanded the matter to LAA by taking into account that appellant have already reversed the entire amount as predeposit. Pursuant to remand of Tribunal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Member Bench reported in 2001 (138) ELT 544 (Tri.-Chennai) in favour of the appellant. Another decision is passed by Division Bench of the Tribunal reported in 2002 (148) ELT 453 (Tri.-Chennai) wherein the Tribunal rejected the appeal of the assessee. 3. Regarding denial of cenvat credit availed on three invoices issued by non-registered persons, he submits that the supplier, M/s. Bihar Alloys Steels Pvt. Ltd. have availed benefit of Notification No.27/92-CE (NT) dt.9.10.1992 as they are exempt .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

confirmed that they are entitled to avail the credit and the invoice issued by the supplier is availing the notification No.27/92. 4. On the other hand, Ld. AR reiterates the finding in the impugned order and submits that once the person is not registered with Central Excise, he cannot raise invoice. Therefore, appellant cannot avail cenvat credit. He also submits that regarding the denial of cenvat credit under Rule 57E, this Tribunal again vide Order No.975/2006 dt.26.10.2006, dismissed the as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ificate issued by Customs, the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the appellant's own case (supra) and in Tribunal Final Order No.975/2006 dt.26.10.2006 had rejected their appeal on the identical issue pertaining to the demand confirmed for the subsequent periods. The relevant paragraph-6 of Tribunal's decision reported in 2002 (148) ELT 453 (Tri-Chennai) decision is reproduced as under :- "6. We have gone through the whole case records and the impugned orders of the Commissioner (A .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

E for the Modvat credit which has been expunged/lapsed and not for any amount paid after 16-3-95 as duty. From the grounds of appeal also we find that the appellants has submitted that credit in any case had been availed only after 16-3-95 and the certificate has been issued much later than 16-3-95. They have further stated that there is nothing in Rule 57E to suggest that credits if any that may arise under Rule 57E in respect of such credits already availed prior to 16-3-95 and which has been .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

led based on certificates under Rule 57E. We would have accepted their contention if they had made original payment of duty after 16-3-95 and certificate-A was issued in respect of duty paid on the inputs on or after 16-3-95. Since the facts are otherwise, in our opinion, the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be faulted with. We, therefore, do not find any merits in the appeals and the same are rejected." 7. In view of this Tribunal's Division Bench order dt.3.5.2002 an .....

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