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

2016 (7) TMI 898 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

2016 (7) TMI 898 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT - 2016 (339) E.L.T. 359 (P & H) - Cenvat Credit / Modvata Credit - purchase of tray casting as capital goods - Held that:- Once it is not in dispute that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the modvat credit on the eligible capital goods, namely, tray casting in the present case, as was clarified even by the department by issuing circular No. 276/110/96-TRU dated 2.12.1996, the denial thereof to the petitioner is totally illegal. Even if .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion is allowed. - CWP No. 9421 of 2001 (O&M) - Dated:- 13-7-2016 - MR. RAJESH BINDAL AND MR. HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, JJ. For The Petitoner : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. Anshuman Chopra, Advocate Rajesh Bindal J. The grievance of the petitioner is that though it was entitled to benefit of modvat credit on purchase of tray casting used in the process of manufacture of tiny powder, in terms of circular No. 276/110/96-TRU dated 2.12.1996, however, the same was wrongly denied 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

passed by the Assistant Commissioner was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Chandigarh on 23.8.1999, while relying upon an earlier decision of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, 'the Tribunal') on the issue. The department preferred appeal before the Tribunal, which was allowed vide order dated 15.3.2000. The petitioner at that stage could not refer to the circular issued by the department entitling it 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

red in terms of the circular issued by the department, the petitioner should not be denied the benefit thereof. Merely because he had not been able to cite the circular at the relevant time, when the appeal was heard, though it was the duty of the counsel appearing for the department to have produced the same, the petitioner could not be denied the benefit admissible to it. Rather, the department should not have preferred the appeal against the order passed by the first Appellate Authority once .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

arties and perused the paper book. The basic facts, which are not in dispute are that the petitioner purchased tray casting. It is entitled to modvat credit on the duty paid on purchase thereof in terms of Rule 57Q of the Rules read with circular No. 276/110/96-TRU dated 2.12.1996. Initially, the department issued show cause notice dated 1.5.1998 to the petitioner proposing to deny the modvat credit. By passing the order, the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Ludhiana, denied that benefit .....

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