Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Unimetal Alloys Ltd. Versus CCE, Hyderabad

2016 (6) TMI 1053 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

Cenvat Credit / Modvat Credit - duty paying documents - appellants availed credit of duty paid on inputs on the strength of carbon copies of challans extended period of limitation - Held that:- The duty paid on the inputs is also not disputed. This apart, we have to say that when the duty paid documents are defaced by the Range Superintendant, thereby approving the documents to be correct and proper, then the department cannot later turn around and contend that the documents do not satisfy the r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

der per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.] The above appeal was remanded by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad vide judgment dated 20.02.2013. The Hon'ble Court directed to consider afresh all issues raised by appellant including the issue of limitation. 2. The appellant is a manufacturer of Mild Steel Ingots (MS Ingots), steel runners etc. The period involved is June, 1991 to January, 1994 when the MODVAT Scheme was in force. The appellants availed credit of duty paid on inputs 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

artment is that the challans were not issued by TISCO Stock yard but by consignment agent (Gouri Shankar Behani). He submitted that this allegation is factually incorrect. He submitted that, the appointed consignment agent in TISCO stock yard renders assistance in receiving stocks from M/s Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd., (TISCO) factory and despatches them from the depot. The stock yard belongs to TISCO and the consignment agent is working in the yard. This is clearly stated in the letter da .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rdingly had to deface the documents. The documents objected to by department as not eligible for taking credit were thus approved by the Range Superintendent by defacing them. The department was aware that the documents were signed by consignment agent. That therefore, the show cause notice dated 07.10.1994 is hit by the bar of limitation, as the notice period during the material time was 6 months. 5. The learned AR, Shri R.R. Bager supported the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssion of facts and the extended period has been rightly invoked. 6. We have heard both sides and perused the records. 7. The appellant purchased scraps (inputs) from dealers who in turn purchased it from TISCO yard under delivery challan duly signed by the consignment agent of TISCO and counter signed by the TISCO yard-in charge. The objection of the Revenue in allowing credit is that the document on which credit is availed are not proper as it was not signed by proper officer of TISCO. It is no .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version