Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Electronic Components & Tuners Versus CCE, Delhi - II

2016 (6) TMI 545 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Cenvat Credit - sending inputs for job work - availing Cenvat credit on nylon granules which are inputs for manufacture of bobbins - whether the goods sent to the job worker had been returned after process. The same could have been cross verified for a finding on fact with production records etc. - Held that:- Appellant in the first round of litigation itself, submitted the full production details of bobbins and their further use in their manufacture. Originally, the recovery of Cenvat credi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of other material evidence like usage of bobbins by the appellant, documents, if any, available at the job workers side to corroborate the job work and return of goods etc. A one line finding to the effect that party failed to produce record hence he is denying Cenvat credit is not legally sustainable. All the records available in the factory premises have been resumed by the visiting officers. Further, it is the Department which is making allegation of non-receipt of job worked goods back to t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

) - Final Order No. 51805/2016 - Dated:- 18-5-2016 - SHRI B. RAVICHANDRAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Shri S.D. Gaur, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri M.R. Sharma, Authorized Representative (DR) ORDER PER. B. RAVICHANDRAN :- The present appeal is against order dated 16/06/2015 of Principal Commissioner (Appeals-I), New Delhi. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of SMPS Transformers liable to Central Excise Duty. They were availing Cenvat credit on nylon granules which ar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and the appellant did not maintain proper records. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against them which concluded in an order dated 31/8/2005 confirming a recovery of Cenvat credit of ₹ 3,96,270/- and imposing penalty of an equivalent amount on the appellant. On appeal the learned Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner for a fresh consideration with certain directions to check up the receipt of bobbins manufactured by the job workers back to 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

ity again passed a denovo order dated 13/5/2014. He confirmed the denial of credit and imposition of equivalent amount of penalty. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed this appeal. As per seen from above progress of the case, the Original Authority decided this show cause notice three times, first time on original proceedings, second time on a remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) and third time on a remand by the Tribunal. It is appar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

utilization of the nylon granules in their RG-23, Part-I and Part-II account ; (b) Whether the Cenvat credit availed nylon granules had been sent to the job workers under job work challans ; and (c) Whether the nylon granules sent to the job workers had been received back by the appellant, even if, after 180 days . 3. The Tribunal observed that if the nylon granules had been received back the Cenvat credit has to be allowed. A perusal of the impugned orders by the lower Authorities clearly indic .....

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 nylon granules were sent under private challans. Considering that there is no prescribed specific document for movement of raw material to the job worker and the challan issued by the appellant formed apparently the basis of current demand, I find point no. (b) also to be answered in favour of the appellant. As already noted on point no. (b) and (c), the Original Authority even after specific remand direction simply recorded that the party could not produce any record or document evidencing .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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