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

2015 (10) TMI 2207 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2015 (10) TMI 2207 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - 2015 (325) E.L.T. 920 (Tri. - Del.) - CENVAT Credit - Whether Cenvat Credit lying in their Cenvat Credit account lapse as per Rule 571-1(7) ibid on 01.03.2000 that when their product became exempted under notification no. 7/2000 dated 01.03.2000 or not - Held that:- On plain reading of the said Rule if goods are exempted under notification based on value of clearance in financial year, in that case as per Rule 57H(7) the Cenvat Credit lying in their Cenvat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

No. E/1563/2006-EX (DB) - Final Order No. A/52306/2015-EX(DB) - Dated:- 15-7-2015 - Ashok Jindal, Member (J) And B Ravichandran, Member (T) For the Appellant : Shri Ravindra Narain, Adv For the Respondent : Shri M S Negi, DR ORDER Per Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal. 2. This is the second round of litigation. In the earlier round of litigation appeal of the appellant was allowed by this Tribunal. The order of this Tribunal which was challenged by Revenue before the Hon'ble High Cour .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ceived by them. The said syringes were exempted from payment of duty vide notification no. 07/2000 dated 01/03/2000. As appellant was having accumulated credit of duty in their Cenvat Credit account on the said date they did not reverse the same. However, the appellant reversed the credit to the extent of about 82 lakhs which was pertaining to input lying in stock either as such or in process as contained in the final product. This reversal is not in dispute. But there was a balance accumulated .....

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 and demand was confirmed. Aggrieved from the said order, appellant filed the appeal before this Tribunal and this Tribunal relying on the decision of CCE Rajkot Vs. Ashok Iron& Steel Fabricators-2002 (140) ELT 277 (Tri-LB) in the case of HMT Vs. CCE Panchkuta-2008 (232) ELT 217 (Tri-LB), in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CCE Chandigarh-2012 (279) ELT 194 (HP) allowed the credit and set aside the demand. The said order was challenged by the Revenue before the Hon'ble High Cou .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2000 as in such notification. Therefore, the Rule 57H(7) is not applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, the balance amount of credit lying in their Cenvat Credit account would not lapse. He further submits that their final product 'disposal syringe' was classified under CTH 9018.00 and the said product was wholly exempted from payment of duty under notification no. 07/2000 ibid and the said notification is not based on value of quantity and clearance in the financial order. Ther .....

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