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

Sree Kaderi Ambal Mills Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai

2015 (11) TMI 830 - CESTAT CHENNAI

CENVAT Credit - Capital goods - Held that:- Adjudicating authority in his order dropped the proceedings in respect of recovery of demand of reversal of cenvat credit. However, he demanded the interest. On perusal of the DC letter dt. 20.7.2001 addressed to the appellant, where the appellant applied for debonding on 30.3.2001, final debonding order was issued and appellant was allowed to operate as DTA unit with effect from 1.4.2001. Subsequently, the Development Commissioner clarified that appel .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lso find that there was no removal of capital goods till the same unit becomes the DTA unit. There was no physical removal or clearance of capital goods or excisable goods. I find that the adjudicating authority instead of taking the date as 31.3.2001 has taken the date of debonding as 14.8.2001 which is not correct. Hence I hold that appellants are not liable for any interest or penalty. Accordingly, the impugned is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. E/677/2005 - FINAL ORDE .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rsed the credit. The adjudicating authority in his order dropped the demand in his order dt. 12.1.2005 and ordered for recovery of interest of ₹ 11,97,139/- and also imposed a penalty of ₹ 1,20,000/-.On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal and upheld the order. Hence the present appeal. 3.The learned advocate submits that they had two units one is registered as EOU and the other is registered as DTA and EOU had applied for debonding and paid appropriate duty 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

rther submits that when there was no the demand, question of interest does not arise. The relevant date for the demand should be taken as 31.3.2001 as approved by the Development Commissioner. 4.On the other hand, Ld. AR reiterates the findings and submits that final debonding was given by the Asst. Commissioner only on 14.8.2001 and till such time unit has remained as an EOU. Therefore interest is payable. He relied para-20 of the OIO. 5.On a careful consideration of the submissions of both sid .....

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
 


|| 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