Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (10) TMI 1978 - CESTAT KOLKATA

2015 (10) TMI 1978 - CESTAT KOLKATA - TMI - Waiver of pre deposit - penalty imposed under Rule 15 (2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 - demand of cenvat credit - Place of removal - Held that:- Prima-facie, we find that the dispute rests on the interpretation of the expression "place of removal", which is covered by the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Honest Bio-vet Pvt. Ltd. (2014 (11) TMI 579 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD). W .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

: Dr Samir Chakraborty, Adv For the Respondent : Shri Chowdhury, Supdt. (AR) ORDER Per D M Misra This is an application seeking waiver of predeposit of cenvat credit of ₹ 62.27 lakhs and equal amount of penalty imposed under Rule 15 (2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. At the outset, the ld. Sr. Advocate Dr. Samir Chakravarty appearing for the Applicant, submits that the Applicants are engaged in the manufacture of cold rolled coils, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ibed under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It is his contention that the confirmation of the demand by the Ld. adjudicating authority is the out come of an erroneous interpretation of the expression of "place of removal" in the said definition. It has been observed that the place of removal is the factory gate and not the load Port. He submits that the said issue is no more res-integra in view of the Larger Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of Honest Bio-vet Pvt. Ltd. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f sale, that is the place from where the ownership of the goods are ultimately transferred. He has vehemently argued that in the present case, it cannot be said that in case of CIF contracts, the ownership of the goods, has been transferred at the Port and not at the factory gate; therefore, the cenvat credit on the services used at the port area in all the cases, would not be admissible to the Applicant. 4. Heard both sides and perused the record. Prima-facie, we find that the dispute rests on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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