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

2016 (6) TMI 435 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

2016 (6) TMI 435 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - TMI - Recovery of differential duty - inputs cleared as such to other sister units by reversing the credit availed on such inputs, instead of discharging the duty on the value of the inputs at the time of its clearance from their factory to their sister units, as per Rule 3(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001/2002 - Held that:- Undisputedly the appellant had cleared "inputs" on which CENVAT Credit was availed during the period June 2001 to February 2003 to their .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n an Appeal filed by the Revenue, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) after applying the correct position of law confirmed the demand against the appellant. - We find that the adjudicating authority while deciding the show cause notice adopted the amended provision of Rule 3(4) of CCR,2001/2002 which came into force from 01.03.2003 instead of Rule 3(4) as was in existence during the relevant period June 2001 to February 2003. - Decided against assessee. - E/1052/2008 - A/10435/2016 - Dated:- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical formulations falling under Chapter sub-heading 3003.10 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In the manufacture of excisable goods, they receive and consume inputs on which CENVAT credit was availed by them. During the relevant period i.e. from June 2001 to February 2003 they had cleared inputs as such to their other sister units by reversing the credit availed on such inputs, instead of discharging 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

de the order of the adjudicating authority. Hence, the present appeal by the assessee-Appellant. 3. The learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue has submitted that at the relevant time, on clearance of inputs as such, the assessee was required to pay duty on the value as determined under Section 4 of CEA,1944. In support of his contention, he has referred to CBEC Circular No. 643/34/2002-CX dated 01.7.2002. Further, he has submitted that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly al .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uch inputs at the time of its receipt of the same at their premises. The Revenue objected to the said method alleging that as per Rule 3(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001/2002, the appellants were required to pay duty on the value of the said inputs. The adjudicating authority, however dropped the proceeding on the basis of amended provision which came in to force w.e.f 01.03.2003. We find that on an Appeal filed by the Revenue, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) after applying the correct positio .....

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