GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
What's New Case Laws Highlights Articles News Forum Short Notes Statutory TMI SMS More ...
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

 

 

 

 

 

Latest Notifications:

    Dated      Category

20-7-2017 Cus (NT)

18-7-2017 IT

18-7-2017 CE (NT)

18-7-2017 CE

18-7-2017 GST CESS Rate

15-7-2017 Kerala SGST

14-7-2017 Andhra Pradesh SGST

14-7-2017 Cus (NT)

14-7-2017 Cus

13-7-2017 Co. Law

13-7-2017 Co. Law

13-7-2017 ADD

13-7-2017 ADD

12-7-2017 Jammu & Kashmir SGST

12-7-2017 Gujarat SGST

12-7-2017 Gujarat SGST

12-7-2017 CGST Rate

12-7-2017 UTGST Rate

12-7-2017 UTGST Rate

12-7-2017 IGST Rate

More Notifications


Latest Circulars:

19-7-2017 Income Tax

18-7-2017 Customs

17-7-2017 Customs

14-7-2017 Income Tax

13-7-2017 Central Excise

13-7-2017 Customs

13-7-2017 Central Excise

13-7-2017 Customs

7-7-2017 Income Tax

7-7-2017 Goods and Services Tax

More Circulars



|| 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