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 →

M/s. Vividh Industries Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Daman

2015 (10) TMI 1700 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Whether appellant has correctly availed cenvat credit with respect to appellant’s own goods received back as rejected goods for repairs, rectification etc. - Held that:- Rule 16(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is not subject to the provisions of Rule 16(2) or maintenance of certain prescribed records. Rule 16(1) conveys that where any finished goods are received for remaking, refining, reconditioning or for any other reason than an assessee shall state the particula .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ontainers or rejected and repaired containers or waste of such returned containers are all cleared on payment of duty. It is not the case of the Revenue that metal containers after repair were cleared clandestinely without payment of duty by the appellant. There is no shortage of metal containers brought out by Revenue. CENVAT credit can not be denied on procedural lapses when the rejected containers were duly reflected in the CENVAT credit account and shown utilised. One to one correlation of r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sistant Commissioner/NDMN/DEM/11-12 dated 30.11.2011, dropping of demand of ₹ 1,94,206/-, was set-aside and the show cause notice demand was confirmed by the first appellate authority alongwith interest. An equivalent penalty was also imposed upon the appellant under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Shri V.N. Rane (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the issue involved in the present appeal is admissi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

redit of rejected goods were rightly admissible under Rule 16:- (a) CCE Meerut-II vs. Polyplex Corporation Limited - [2008 (224) ELT 46 (Uttarakhand)] (b) Hitesh Plastics Pvt. Limited vs. CCE & Cus, Vapi - [2009 (243) ELT 419 (Tri. Ahmd.)] (c) CCE, Jaipur vs. Amco India Limited - [2015 (316) ELT 525 (Tri. Del.)] (d) Dhanuka Pesticides vs. CCE, Delhi-III - [2014 (303) ELT 90 (Tri. Del.)] 3. Shri J. Nair (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that appellant has not maintained any recor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

als) has correctly relied upon the case laws mentioned in Para 10. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved is whether appellant has correctly availed cenvat credit with respect to appellant s own goods received back as rejected goods for repairs, rectification etc. Rule 16 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is as follows:- Credit of duty on goods brought to the factory - Rule 16. (1) Where any goods on which duty has been paid at the time of removal thereof are brought .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

CENVAT credit taken under sub-rule (1) and in any other case the manufacturer shall pay duty on goods received under sub-rule (1) at the rate applicable on the date of removal and on the value determined under sub-section (2) of Section 3 or Section 4 or Section 4A of the Act, as the case may be. 4.1 It is observed that Rule 16(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is not subject to the provisions of Rule 16(2) or maintenance of certain prescribed records. Rule 16(1) conveys that where any finish .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lant also support this view and is reproduced below:- 6. On going through the submission so made as also by the learned DR and after going through the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals), I find no reason to disagree with the finding of the appellate authority. As rightly observed by him, Revenue on one hand, is contending that no records were being maintained by the assessee after receipt of the returned goods, so as to show the further process taken by them and on the other hand, they are .....

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