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

M/s NCL Industries Ltd. Versus The Commissioner C.C.E & ST, Guntur

2016 (7) TMI 1106 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

Cenvat Credit on returned goods - activity of bringing the cement from Mattampally unit to the appellant unit - claim denied on the goods as not inputs but finished goods - Held that:- Manufacturer can take credit of duty paid on the goods by treating them as inputs. It is seen from the above rule that if goods are brought for any other reason also, the manufacturer is entitled to take credit as if the goods are inputs. The learned counsel for appellant submitted that the appellant unit had rail .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ther reason , the rule would apply. Thus, do not find that there is contravention of any of the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rule, 2004. The activity falls within the ambit of Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. On such score, the demand of interest and imposition of penalty is unsustainable - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. E/27874/2013 - Final Order No. A/30205/2016 - Dated:- 15-3-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S. Member(Judicial) Shri V.J.Sankaram, Advocate for the Appellant Shri G .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rade cement with ISI Mark-The appellant received 43 grade cement from Mattampally factory and marked it with ISI mark and took credit of duty paid on the cement as input under Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules. While clearing the goods the entire credit was utilized. The department entertained the view that as cement is removed from Mattampally unit to Kadimpathavaram unit, the appellant cannot take credit on these goods as these are not inputs but finished goods. 2. A show cause notice was issued .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

urer can receive duty paid goods into the factory for being remade, refined, reconditioned or for any other reason and after stating the particulars of such receipt, the manufacturer is entitled to take Cenvat credit of duty paid as if such goods are received as input under the Cenvat Credit Rule, 2004. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has partly accepted this contention. The observation is as under. Thus as per the provisions of the above Rule, duly paid goods can be brought in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

payment of duty by the appellant while clearing the cement from Kondapally unit and it is pertinent to mention that it is not the case that the adjudicating authority had questioned the utilization of CENVAT credit towards payment of duty on clearance of cement from Kondapally. Thus, from the above, the dispute is with regard to the availment of CENVAT credit on the duty paid cement received from the Mattampally Unit. The demand for recovery of availment of Cenvat credit by the department/adjudi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he penalty of ₹ 6,00,000/- imposed by the original authority was reduced to ₹ 2,00,000/-. The appellants are thus before the tribunal. 5. On behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel Shri V.J.Shankaram submitted that there was no procedural infraction committed by the appellant. That appellant is well within the statutory Rule 16 to receive duty paid goods for any other reason and dispatch them to customers and in this process, the appellant is entitled to take and utilize the cre .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in the impugned order. He submitted that the goods/cement when brought into appellant unit from Mattampally unit is finished goods. They are not inputs and therefore credit is not admissible. That Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held the situation to be revenue neutral. That as these goods were not inputs, there was violation of Cenvat Credit Rules and therefore, the appellants are liable to pay interest and the penalty imposed is reasonable. 7. I have heard the rival submissions. For better .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

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


|| 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