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

2016 (5) TMI 305 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2016 (5) TMI 305 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - 2016 (335) E.L.T. 220 (Mad.) - Cenvat Credit - Eligible input - Final products cleared along with the packing material - Held that:- Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Revenue on the ground that if the packing material had not been used for the purpose of packing the finished products, the credit taken by the assessee for the duty paid on packing materials had to be reversed. But unfortunately it has not taken into account the definition of the word 'input' .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

issioner of Appeals. - There is no dispute about the fact that the final products were cleared along with the packing material in this case. - The surprise inspection did not reveal that the packing materials were recalled and again made use of as sought to be contended by the respondent. An invention of this nature across the bar cannot improve the case of the Revenue. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is set aside. - decided in favour of appellant - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 816 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r under the Central Excise Rules, a manufacturer would be eligible to take credit of duty paid on packing material provided the value of such packing material is or was included in the final product or in other words inclusion of the value of the packing material in the final product is a relevant consideration to decide the validity of the claim to CENVAT/MODVAT credit on packing material ? (ii) Whether the order of the Tribunal suffers from the vice of failing to examine relevant consideration .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uot;(i) Whether it is incumbent upon the Tribunal to consider every fact/submission for and against the assessee and give its finding on each of such submission after considering the evidence pro and contra to each one of them, the failure of the Tribunal to deal with the contentions/submissions of the appellant would vitiate the proceedings ? (ii) Whether the Tribunal erred in as much as it fails to examine the aspect of relevance of packing material for marketability, which is relevant factor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

invoking the extended period of limitation without rendering any finding as to the existence of fraud, collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with an intent to evade payment of duty and thus bad for want of jurisdiction?" 2. Heard Ms.Cynduja Crishnan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.N. Mohanamurali, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent. 3. The appellant/assessee is a manufacturer of moulded plastic furniture and material handling crates falling unde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Woven Sacks were also sent along with finished products in loose conditions to enable them to load more materials per truck thereby reducing the cost of freight per piece of the product. 4. However, not satisfied with the said explanation offered contemporaneously at the spot, the Additional Commissioner issued a show cause notice dated 5.12.2001 calling upon the appellant to show cause as to why an amount of duty to the extent of ₹ 9,61,758/- should not be recovered under Proviso (i) to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng the finished products with the packing material. The appellant claimed that this was done to load more number of finished products onto the truck thereby reducing the cost of freight. 6. However, rejecting the explanation of the appellant, the Commissioner passed an Order in Original dated 20.5.2002, demanding recovery of a sum of ₹ 9,61,758/-, together with a penalty for an equivalent amount and interest at the appropriate rate. 7. The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed by the C .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed 3.8.2009. It is against the said order that the assessee is on appeal. 8. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has not taken into account the definition of the word 'input' appearing in Rule 2(g) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2002. It reads as follows : " 'Input' means all goods, except high speed diesel oil and motor spirit, commonly known as petrol, used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products whether directly or indirectly and whether contained in the final product .....

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