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 →

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-Rajkot Versus Tata Chemicals Limited

2016 (7) TMI 1026 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Cenvat Credit on Furnace Oil used as fuel and other inputs used in the generation of electricity, which in turn utilized in the manufacture of dutiable goods as well as exempted/non-excisable goods. - Held that:- the Department allegation regarding the appellant has not maintained separate accounts for such inputs and hence the appellant has suppressed the facts, has no legal force, as the appellant has not required to maintain separate accounts for such inputs because the same is excluded by th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e ORDER PER : DR D.M. MISRA, Heard both sides. 2. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against OIA-99/2007/COMMR-A-/RAJ dt 3.5.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Rajkot. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapters 28 & 29 of CETA,1985. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 10th March 2006, alleging wrong availment of Cenvat Credit on Furnace Oil used as fuel and other .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2005 was demanded with a proposition for imposition of penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed and penalty of equal amount imposed. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Ld Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, set aside the impugned order and allowed their appeal. Hence, the Revenue is in Appeal. 4. The Ld AR for the Revenue assailing the impugned order of the Ld Commissioner (Appeals) submitted that the issue of eligibility of CENVAT Credit on the inpu .....

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 the case of CCE, Vadodara II Vs Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer Co Ltd vide Order No A/10672-10673/WZB/AHD/2013 dt. 14.5.2013. The appeal filed before the Hon ble Gujarat High Court against the said order of Larger Bench of the Tribunal has been dismissed. Thus, the issue on merit stands decided in favour of the Revenue. 5. The Ld Advocate, Shri Nainavati for the respondents on the other hand submits that even though the issue on merit, is held against the respondent, however, the respondent .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ctricity on which Cenvat Credit has been availed which in turn used both in or in relation to the manufacture of dutiable goods and exempted/ non-excisable products. Therefore, the respondent has a strong case on limitation. 6. I find that the issue on merit has been decided in favour of the Revenue by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilisers Ltd in its decision dtd 17.8.2009. Adopting the said ratio, even after the issue has been referred to the Larger Bench, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ind that the appellant has rightly availed and utilized the Cenvat Credit on input used as fuel, and they have not required to follow the procedures as laid down under Rule 57 AD of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 6(1), (2) and (3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2002/the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the appellant is not liable for penalty under the Central Excise Laws. The appellant has followed the procedures as per the law; therefore, they are not liable for any penalty. As regards the invocati .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rate accounts of such inputs. Therefore, the Department allegation regarding the appellant has not maintained separate accounts for such inputs and hence the appellant has suppressed the facts, has no legal force, as the appellant has not required to maintain separate accounts for such inputs because the same is excluded by the legal provisions during the relevant period,. Therefore, order for imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and invocation of extended per .....

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