GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (4) TMI 102 - CESTAT CHENNAI

2016 (4) TMI 102 - CESTAT CHENNAI - TMI - Wrongly availed cenvat credit on inputs/parts under Rule 14 of CCR - denial of credit on MS Channels, MS Angles, MS Plates etc. after the amendment of definition of Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - demand appropriated with interest and imposed equivalent penalty - Held that:- Both sides have not considered various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Court pronouncements on the issue of credit availed on MS Angles, channels etc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Mr M Kannan, Adv For the Respondent : Mr K P Muralidharan, AC (AR) ORDER The appellant M/s. Hinduja Foundries Ltd. Kathivakkam High Road, Ennore, Chennai, filed this appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 04.08.2014, wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the adjudicating authority. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Cast articles of Iron and Aluminium for use in Motor vehicles. They availed credit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

building or laying of foundation or making of structures for support of capital goods. Since these items were not tailor or custom made and used for the construction of factory building and for madding structures for support of capital goods within the factory they are ineligible for the credit on excise duty paid on inputs and capital goods. In terms of Rule 2 (k) of CCR which stood prior to 1.4.2011 as well as the amendment to Rule 2 (k) w.e.f. 1.4.2011, the appellants were not eligible for th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

propriate interest and imposed equivalent penalty. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the adjudicating authority. Hence, the present appeal. 3. The Ld. Counsel Shri M. Kannan, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant reiterated the grounds of appeal and submits that the demand in the SCN relates to the period January, 2011 to December, 2011 and therefore, the Rule 2(k) as it stood prior to 1.4.2011 and the one which came into effect from 1.4.2011 are applicable. He fu .....

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