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 Jain Products Versus Commissioner of Central Excise-Rajkot

2015 (10) TMI 2073 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Reversal of CENVAT Credit - removal of inputs as such - determination of amount to be reversed - transaction value - Held that:- Show cause notice was issued for the extended period of limitation.There are various Board Circulars on this issue, which was decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case M/s Eicher Tractors (2005 (9) TMI 340 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI), as distinguished in the decision of M/s National Engg India Ltd Vs CCE Jaipur I - [2010 (4) TMI 674 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI]. Recentl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

our of assessee. - Appeal No. : E/772/2007 - Order No. A/11369 / 2015 - Dated:- 8-9-2015 - Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) and Mr. P.M. Saleem, Member (Technical) For the Petitioner : Shri P V Sheth, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri J Nair, Authorised Representative Per : Mr.P.K. Das, After hearing both sides and on perusal of records, we find that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Bright Bars classifiable under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985.They were availin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

xcise duty of ₹ 2,17,157/- alongwith interest and imposed penalty of equal amount of duty.The Commissioner (appeals) upheld the Adjudication order. 2. The Learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant contested demand of duty on merits as well as on limitation. Both the sides cited case laws on merit and limitation. We find that the issue may be decided on limitation.The demand of duty by show cause notice dtd 13.5.2005 was issued for the period 5.4.2002 to 14.6.2002. On the identical issue, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uty on transaction value during August and September, 2002 came to the notice of the Department during audit sometime in January, 2003 and on being asked by the Department, the appellant submitted all the required information under their letter dated 17-6-2003.The extended period has been invoked by the department on the ground that the appellant were aware of different rules and procedure of availment of Cenvat credit but still chose to take the credit in spite of Board s instructions and thus .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

provision of Central Excise Act, 1944 or of the rules framed thereunder with intent to evade the payment of duty. Interpreting the provisions of Section 11A (1), the Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. CCE, Madras (supra) has held that when the law requires an intention to evade the payment of duty, then this not mere failure to pay the duty but is something more that the assessee was aware that the duty was payable and he deliberately avoided paying it. On going through the or .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

under Section 4, 4A or Section 3(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as the case may be, was payable or the assessee s liability was only restoring the Cenvat credit originally taken. From the facts of this case, it is clear that the appellant have paid the amount strictly going by the wordings of Rule 3(4) during the period of dispute, according to which on removal of cenvated inputs as such, an amount equal to duty on the transaction value was payable. With regard to this issue, there were con .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

) cannot be invoked. Therefore, from overall facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find anything from which it can be concluded that the short payment of the amount payable under Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules was a deliberate act on the part of the assessee. Therefore, I hold that the longer limitation period in this case is not invokable. More so, when during visit of the audit team all the information had been made available by the assessee on the basis of which only the Departm .....

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