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 →

Amitasha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur

2015 (11) TMI 462 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Availment of CENVAT Credit - sale of finished goods lower than the price of inputs (raw material) - While clearing the said goods, they treated the same as waste of ferrous of iron and steel and classified the same under sub-heading 7204.90 and paid the duty accordingly - department is considering the goods removed by them as input cleared as such - Held that:- the classification of the goods followed by the appellant is incorrect and is required to be rejected. The goods would be classifiable u .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. We do not see any reason not to accept the value declared in such invoices. The Revenue has also not produced evidence that the appellant has collected any amount over and above the value declared in such invoices. In view of this position, the invoice value may be accepted and duty computed @ 15% on the declared value.

Extended period of limitation - Held that:- whole case was made based upon an information and after visit to the unit. From the declaration filed by the appellant, i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) And Mr. S.S. Garg, Member (Judicial) For the Petitioner : Shri Nimesh Mehta, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri V.K. Agrawal, Additional Commissioner (AR) ORDER Per: P.K. Jain Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of transmission line towers. For the manufacture of such towers, they used angles and plates as inputs and availed cenvat credit on the same. While manufacturing transmission line towers, angles and plates of small .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

riod 23.7.1995 to 27.9.1996 invoking the extended period of limitation. The case was made based upon an information and visit of the Preventive Branch of the Central Excise Headquarters, Nagpur. The demand notice was confirmed by the original authority. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who ordered for certain pre-deposit. The case was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35F of the Central .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ect from 28.9.1996 and the penalty amount under Section 11AC was reduced to an amount equivalent to the duty. Thereafter the appellant filed an appeal before this Tribunal and this Tribunal in turn remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to take into account certain case laws. After the said direction, the Commissioner (Appeals) has passed the present order. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before us. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

received and thus the goods cleared are nothing but waste and scrap and they have paid the duty correctly. 3. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR), on the other hand, submitted that the issue is well settled by the Hon ble Supreme Courts decision in the case of LML Ltd. vs. CCE, Kanpur reported in 1997 (94) ELT 273 (SC), which has again been reaffirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE vs. Bhushan Steels and Strips Ltd. reported in 2010 (257) ELT 5 (SC). He submitted that in .....

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 the goods involved. 5. As far as the first issue is concerned, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of LML Ltd. (supra) as also Bhushan Steels and Strips Ltd. (supra) has discussed the issue and in para 14, 15 and 16 has observed as under:- 14. In L.M.L. Ltd. case this Court held that cut sheets which are used in the manufacture of ancillary items cannot be regarded as waste and scrap as the same were used by the assessee for producing some other items, as in the present case. It was observed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

for use in the manufacture of chemicals. This being so, those portions of cut sheets which are not used for recovery of metal or in the manufacture of chemicals cannot be cleared under Tariff Item 72.03. At the same time the definition of the word sheet as contained in Chapter 72 would clearly indicate that the cut sheets which are used by the appellant do not fall under that category. The definition of sheet, inter alia, states that it has to be a hot or cold-rolled flat product, rolled in rect .....

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 Tariff Entry 72.10 which after restructuring of the tariff have become equivalent to Entry 72.16. 15. We agree with the view taken by the Tribunal. HSN Explanatory Notes in Chapter 72 provide that waste and scrap is generally used for the recovery of metal by re-melting or for the manufacture of chemicals. It further provides that Heading 72.04 excludes articles which, with or without repair or renovation, can be reused for their former purposes or can be adapted for other uses; it also e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

littings, end cuttings and others will be classifiable under Heading 72.16 of the Schedule to the Tariff Act being offcuts of different shapes and sizes. The finding recorded by the Tribunal that no penalty is imposable in the present matters having not been challenged in these appeals, is confirmed. In view of the said decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court, in our view, the classification of the goods followed by the appellant is incorrect and is required to be rejected. The goods would be cl .....

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