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

C.C.E. Delhi-III Versus M/s. P.P. Oxide

2016 (3) TMI 96 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Denial of CENVAT credit - Cenvat Credit on the basis of the invoices issued by M/s. R. K. Enterprises - Held that:- In this case, it is no doubt, case has been booked on the statement of Shri R. K. Gupta proprietor of M/s. R. K. Enterprises who initially stated that he has merely issued the cenvitable invoices, on the basis of which respondent has taken the credit. In fact the respondent used to give payment of these invoices through cheques and equivalent amount of cash has been returned. It is .....

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f Shri R. K. Gupta has been retracted on the first available opportunity before chief metropolitan Magistrate. These things have not been considered by the adjudicating authority while adjudicating the matter.

As one of the transporter states that he is having three tempos and when these tempos used to transport the goods either he personally drives the tempos or he will be accompanying the driver of the tempo. No prudent men can drive three tempos at a moment. Moreover, he cannot be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tioner : Shri B.B. Sharma, DR For the Respondent : Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate ORDER PER ASHOK JINDAL: The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein Commissioner (A) has dropped the demand against the respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent is manufacturer of Zinc Oxide. An investigation was conducted at the end of the supplier of the goods i.e. the first stage dealer M/s. R. K. Enterprise owned by Shri R. K. Gupta. On the basis of the statement dated 16.01.200 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

show cause notice was adjudicated. Demands proposed in the show cause notice were affirmed. Aggrieved from the said order respondent appeared before the Ld. Commissioner (A), who set aside the proceedings against the respondent. Aggrieved from the said order Revenue is before me. 3. The Ld. AR submits that in this case Ld. Commissioner (A) has added while concluding his findings that no case is made out against the respondent. In fact, there were enough corroborative evidence in the form of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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