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

2016 (3) TMI 154 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (3) TMI 154 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - 2016 (332) E.L.T. 829 (Tri. - Del.) - Recovery of 8% of value of exempted goods in terms of Rule 6 (2) (b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 - failure to to maintain separate accounts regarding inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted items manufactured - Held that:- As the show cause notice itself acknowledges that the entire Cenvat credit taken on inputs during the period August 2003 to July 2004 was paid back by the appellant on 7th Augus .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

case since the assessee has reversed the full amount, there is no question of any proceedings and confirmation of demand against the assessee. We find that there is nothing in Revenue's appeal which can lead to a different inference. The appeal only states the provisions of Rule 6 to say that 8% of value of exempted goods is recoverable. We find nothing on record to interfere with the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) who examined the issue in detail and arrived at the decision, as discuss .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hat the respondent are engaged in the manufacture of Solvent Extracted Refined Soya Oil subjected to Central Excise duty. Proceedings were initiated against the respondent to recover 8% of the value of exempted goods manufactured and cleared by them during August 2003 to July, 2004 as they have not maintained separate accounts of inputs on which credit has been taken which are used in the manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted goods. The Original Authority held that apart from manufacture 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

Appeals) who set aside the original order and allowed their appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue is before us in appeal. In the appeal, it was submitted that the respondent did not maintain separate accounts which is in violation of Rule 6 (3) (b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and hence the Original Authority is right in confirming the recovery of said amount. 2. The learned AR reiterated the grounds of appeal. None appeared on behalf of the respondent. 3. We find in the present case, .....

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