Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Bright Engineering Works Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Daman

2015 (11) TMI 451 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Rectification of mistake - Cenvat Credit - Duty paying document - input services - sr. no was not pre-printed but hand written on Invoice - Waiver of pre deposit - Mandatory pre deposit - Held that:- adjudicating authority disallowed CENVAT credit and confirmed the demand of ₹ 1.60 Crores alongwith interest and penalty, on the ground that the appellant had availed cenvat credit on the strength of invoices of the service providers, bearing hand written serial numbers. Both sides placed case .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

compliance is extended - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Application No.: E/ROM/10616/2015 In Appeal No. : E/10679/2015 - ORDER No. M/11052/2015 - Dated:- 16-7-2015 - Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) And Mr. P.M. Saleem, Member (Technical) For the Petitioner : Shri S. Suriyanarayanan, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Alok Srivastava, Authorised Representative ORDER Per : Mr. P.K. Das; Applicant filed this application for rectification of mistake/ modification of Stay Order No. M/10958-1 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

submits that the Tribunal has not considered the decision of the Single Member Bench in the case of Sanathan Textile Pvt. Limited vs. CCE, Vapi 2013 (293) ELT 44 (Tri. Ahmd.), which has followed the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal. He also submits that the Bench has not considered the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad vs. Satyen Dyes 2001 (134) ELT 655 (Tri. LB), which is clearly applicable to the present case. He further submits that demand .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of equal amount of duty and out of that, the Tribunal directed the applicant to pre-deposit ₹ 12 Lakh, which would be about 7.5% of the duty, is mandatory pre-deposit under the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as amended. 4. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we reproduce the relevant portion of the Stay Order dated 15.06.2015, as under:- 9. He has also relied upon the decision of the Honble Himachal Pradesh in the case of CCE Vs Chandra .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(293) ELT 44 (Tri-Ahmd) ii) CCE Kol-VII Vs Dhanvridhi Commercial (P) Ltd 2013 (287) ELT 463 (Tri-Kolkata) iii) N.C. Cable Ltd Vs CCE Delhi-II 2014 (299) ELT 467 (Tri-Del) iv) Pepsico India Holding P. Ltd Vs CCE Mumbai-II 2012 (284) ELT 514 (Tri-Mumbai) 10. We find that the Adjudicating authority passed the impugned order, following the decision of the Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court and the CBEC Supplementary Instructions. The learned Advocate relied upon the decision of Single Member Bench o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version