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 →

C.C.E. Indore Versus M/s. Man Industries (India) Ltd.

2016 (2) TMI 559 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Quantification of 8% under Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules when the Respondents are clearing the exempted final product - whether the demand is clearly hit by the time bar? - Held that:- The clearance of exempted goods and the reversal of 8% of value of the sale on the collection of the 8%, money from the buyers are all in the knowledge of the Department. Hence, we agree with the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on the point of time bar. Regarding inclusion of freight for arriving at the value of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

orker's premises for coating is in terms of permission granted by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore. The sale value (contract price) has been adopted by the Respondent for quantifying the 8% amount for reversal. Hence, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the demand is not sustainable on merit as well as on time bar. On careful consideration of the impugned order and the grounds of appeal, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order, accordingly, the appeal is dismis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l Excise duty. They are availing cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods. They have been following the procedure under Rule 6(3)(b) and were paying 8% on the value of exempted final products. It is found that they are recovering this 8% also from the customers. The Revenue entertained certain doubt regarding the quantification of 8% amount for reversal in terms of Rule 6(3). It has felt that this 8% collected by the Respondent from the buyer should form part of the value and the reversal was n .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lty under Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Original order and allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by this, the Revenue is before us. 2. It is submitted by the Ld. AR that the Respondent did not follow the correct value of exempted goods for reversing 8% on the same in terms of Rule 6(3)(b). The reversed amount which was collected from the buyer is also to be added while calculating the value .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ansportation cost upto the job workers premises. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the impugned order has examined all the issues raised by the Revenue and came to the correct findings. It was further submitted that the demand made is clearly time barred as correctly held by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 4. We have heard both the sides and examined the records. 5. The issue involved is the correct quantification of 8% under Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules when the Respo .....

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