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 Ganapati Alloys, Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta, Shri R.B. Yadav Versus Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Vapi

2015 (12) TMI 1048 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Goods damaged due to flood - Imposition of penalty - Held that:- During de-novo Adjudication, the Appellants stated before the Adjudicating authority that they do not have any new or other documents except the documents submitted at the time of earlier Adjudication. Thus, the Appellants had not produced any documents in terms of Tribunal s order before the Adjudicating authority in denovo Adjudication - Appellants had not informed the Department about the loss of invoic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Appeal No.E/432-434/2011-SM - Order No.A/11791-11793/2015 - Dated:- 23-11-2015 - Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) For the Petitioner : Shri R. Subramanya, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri S.K. Shukla, A.R. ORDER Per: P.K. Das The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that M/s Ganpati Alloys, the Appellant-firm was engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots, classifiable under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. There 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

T invoices of ₹ 71,63,191.00 were not available. A Show Cause Notice dt.05.11.2007 was issued, proposing to deny CENVAT Credit of ₹ 71,63,191.00 alongwith interest and to impose penalty for the month of January 2003 to June 2005. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of CENVAT Credit of ₹ 43,72,859.00 alongwith interest and imposed penalties. The Tribunal by Final Order No.A/393-395/WZB/AHD/2010, dt.03.05.2010 remanded the matter to the Adjudicating authority with cer .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and on limitation. He submits that there is no dispute that at the time of availing CENVAT Credit, the Appellant possessed the original copy of the invoices, which were lost during the flood and therefore, the CENVAT Credit should be allowed on the basis of photo-copy of the invoices. He further submits that the photo-copy of the invoices has to be accepted for the purpose of verification. It is further submitted that the CENVAT Credit was taken during the period January 2003 to June 2005 and Au .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vade payment of duty and therefore, extended period of limitation would be invoked. He drew the attention of the Bench to the relevant portion of the Adjudication order. He also submits that the Tribunals remand order is only for verification of records. 4. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that that this is second round of litigation. For proper appreciation of the case, the relevant portion of the Tribunals order dt.03.05.2010 is reproduced below:- 5. We find .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

round 6 invoices issued after the flood incidence, in respect of which the MODVAT Credit also stand denied. We leave the said issue for Commissioner to decide afresh in de-novo proceedings. 5. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that during de-novo Adjudication, the Appellants stated before the Adjudicating authority that they do not have any new or other documents except the documents submitted at the time of earlier Adjudication. Thus, the Appellants had not produced any documents in term .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

se, Accounts and other miscellaneous were not available and few records which were available for the said period, were not legible due to flood water. Thus, though the Panchnama was drawn by the Range officers but the facts were recorded as per what was stated by the authorized signatory of the Assessee unit. The then Commissioner in his OIO No.07/Dem/Vapi/2009 has held that the Assessee had never intimated that the Cenvatable documents were lost in flood and instead they had collected zerox cop .....

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