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 →

Union of India Versus Chhattisgarh Electricity Co. Ltd.

2016 (1) TMI 387 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT

Reversal of cenvat credit on sale of electricity outside buyers - Rule 6 - assessee did not maintain separate accounts with regard to inputs used for generation of electricity meant for sale to outsiders and that for captive consumption - period October, 2001 to July, 2003 - Held that:- The question urged before us for non-compliance of the statutory requirement under Rule 6(2) and the statutory presumption under Section 11A(4)(e) has not been considered by the Tribunal. We are further of the op .....

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 the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT [Judgment per : Navin Sinha, C.J.]. - The present appeal arises from order dated 3-11-2009 [2010 (262) E.L.T. 582 (Tribunal)] in Appeal No. E/254/2006-Excise Branch, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter called the Tribunal ). 2. The Tribunal held that the respondent was liable to pay 8% of the value of electricity sold to outside buyers for the period October, 2001 to July, 2003 as it .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oner of Central Excise, Delhi-III) and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for working out the quantum of demand, but only for the normal period, i.e., one year. 3. The order sheets of this case reveal that the respondent was represented by Counsel on 14-6-2010. It was again duly represented on 25-6-2010 by the same Counsel. On that date, there was an office note that no Vakalatnama had been filed by the Counsel. The respondent continued to be represented by the same Counsel 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

it stood dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 29-9-2011 for removing the defects. 4. The order sheet dated 17-6-2015 adequately notices the past dates of appearances on behalf of respondent and that none was present on its behalf on the former date. The office note that no power had yet been filed on behalf of respondent was also noticed but the name of the Counsel was not appearing in the cause list. Pursuant to the directions in this regard, name of the Counsel for t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ss of the pendency of a case against it, more particularly after having entered appearance and filed cross-appeal also does not ensure its representation, it is not open for it to urge that the order has been passed behind its back or without opportunity of hearing. The situation is the creation of the respondent and it must bear the burden. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant invites our attention to Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ) which reads .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

inputs meant for use in the manufacture of exempted goods and take Cenvat credit only on that quantity of inputs which is intended for use in the manufacture of dutiable goods 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant on basis of the aforesaid Rule submits that it was a statutory obligation of the respondent to maintain separate accounts with regard to the inputs used by it regarding electricity sold to outsiders leviable to excise duty and that used for captive consumption not liable for excise .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ere under with intent to evade payment of duty. by any person chargeable with the duty, the Central Excise Officer shall, within five years from the relevant date, serve notice on such person requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice alongwith interest payable thereon under Section 11AA and penalty equivalent to the duty specified in the notice. 8. Learned Counsel next submits that the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the respondent did not .....

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 intention. It is to be gathered cumulatively in the facts of each case. The Tribunal should not have confined liability for the normal period only. 9. If no separate records were maintained, the direction of the Tribunal to quantify the generation sale and consumption under the two heads was a physical impossibility. He lastly submits that the Tribunal has completely erred in relying upon paragraph M/s. Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (supra) which related to definition of the word input only and did .....

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