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

2015 (12) TMI 1395 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2015 (12) TMI 1395 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - Denial of CENVAT Credit - No manufacturing activity is done - Held that:- Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the benefit to the respondent on the ground that once the duty has been paid on the final product, the same should be treated as reversal of the ineligible credit taken on the inputs and there is no requirement for insisting the assessee again to pay/ reverse the cenvat credit. I find that the observations of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) are .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cture then there was no scope for payment of any Central Excise Duty on removal of final product. However, since the final product has suffered duty, reversal of credit taken by the Respondent on the inputs will not result in any loss of Revenue to the Government exchequer. - no infirmity in the impugned order - Decided against Revenue. - Excise Appeal No. E/2947/2009-Ex(SM) - Dated:- 3-6-2015 - S K Mohanty, Member (J) For the Appellant : Mr G R Singh, DR For the Respondent : Mr Sudhir Malhotra, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

amount to manufacture, but since the duty has been paid on the final product, such payment should be treated as reversal of ineligible credit taken on the inputs and the assessee cannot be called upon to pay the credit once again. 2. The Revenue has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the input on which cenvat credit has been taken by the Respondent and the final product manufactured in the factory are the same and not distinct and identifiable commodity. According to the Revenue, s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ted in 2007 (215) ELT 444 (Tri. Del), PV Sanghvi vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II reported in 2004 (171) ELT 24 (Tri. Mum) to justify his stand that in absence of any manufacturing activity, the credit taken on the inputs are not permissible and as such the same is required to be reversed. 4. Sh. Sudhir Malhotra, the Ld. Advocate appearing for the Respondent submits that the credit taken on the disputed goods have been utilized for clearance of the finished products from the factory .....

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 in 2008 (230) ELT 488 (Tri. - Mum) & Stump Scheule & Somappa Ltd. vs Commr. of C. Ex. Bangalore reported in 2005 (191) ELT 1085 (Tri. Bang.). 5. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records. 6. In the impugned order, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the benefit to the respondent on the ground that once the duty has been paid on the final product, the same should be treated as reversal of the ineligible credit taken on the inputs and there is no requ .....

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