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

2016 (7) TMI 1138 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

2016 (7) TMI 1138 - CESTAT HYDERABAD - TMI - Cenvat credit eligibility - whether credit is eligible on inputs, when the process does not amount to manufacture? - manufacturing of High Carbon Ferro Chrome (HCFC) - Held that:- Once assessee considered the activity as amounting to manufacture and discharged duty liability CENVAT Credit cannot be denied holding that there is no manufacture. See AJINKYA ENTERPRISES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-III [2013 (6) TMI 610 - CESTAT MUMBAI ]. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

order. 2. The appellants are manufacturing High Carbon Ferro Chrome (HCFC) falling under chapter subheading 7202.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA), 1985. They are availing CENVAT credit on inputs & capital goods. The appellants purchased low grade HCFC on payment of duty and processed the same and resultant High Grade Carbon HCFC was cleared on payment of duty treating that the process amounted to manufacture. The department was of the view that no manufacture was involved as the input .....

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 the impugned order, held that there is no manufacturing process Involved and that materials fail to satisfy the definition of input given under Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules (CCR), 2002 and set aside the order passed by adjudicating authority. The appellant is thus before the Tribunal. 4. On behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel, Ms A.S.K. Swetha submitted that the appellants had cleared the final product on payment of Central Excise duty. The credit availed on inputs is sought to be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

13 (294) ELT 203 (Bom)] 4. Commissioner Vs Creative Enterprises [2009 ELT 785 (Guj)] affirmerd by Hon'ble S.C. [2009 (243) ELT A 120 S.C]. 5. CCE & ST Rohtak Vs Panch Ratna Steel (P) Ltd, [2015 (10) TMI 1252 Cestat, New Delhi] 5. The learned AR, Sri K.B.K. Raju defended the impugned order and submitted that the input as well as finished product fall under the same chapter heading 7202. Thus no new, distinct product emerges. Therefore, the process does not amount to manufacture. The appel .....

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