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

2016 (7) TMI 1202 - CESTAT BANGALORE

2016 (7) TMI 1202 - CESTAT BANGALORE - TMI - Demand of differential duty - When the Commissioner in the impugned order has not given the appellants benefit of Cenvat credit on capital goods, the appellants plead that after allowing them benefit of admissible Cenvat credit, the actual duty liability is to be revised. - invocation of extended period of limitation - Held that:- Both the appeals are remanded back to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-1 for re-computation of the liability .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

jkamal Plasmoulds (P) Ltd. respectively against the common Order-in-Original No. 19/2007 dated 27.3.2007, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-I Commissionerate, Bangalore. In the subject matter, the CESTAT earlier had passed Final Order Nos. 142 & 143/2006 dated 1.2.2006 wherein it was held as follows : (a) The demand of differential duty on the ground of under-valuation for the period from 1.2.2002 to 30.1.2003 of ₹ 28,23,031/- was upheld and invocation of extended .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s to the Department for re-computation of duty liability; these details / documents included Chartered Accountant s certificate in respect of Cenvat credit on capital goods, inputs, sales tax returns, etc. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-I, has passed the impugned order (Order-in-Original No. 19/2007 dated 24.3.2007) against which the appellants are now before this Tribunal. 3. In the present appeals, the appellants inter-alia submit that the impugned order has rejected .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rder against the computation of the duty demand made in the impugned order as there is mistake in the same and they are also challenging the denial of Modvat credit on capital goods which should have been deducted while computing duty liability. Further, the Respondent has wrongly considered the value of clearance in Para 22 of the impugned order. Due to above the demands confirmed in the impugned order is high-pitched and is contrary to the directions of this Honorable Tribunal vide order dated .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Para 12 of the Final Order. Therefore, this mistake in reckoning the correct value has resulted in high-pitched duty demand and consequent penalty. It is further submitted that the appellant had received Capital goods viz., moulds and plant and machinery which were eligible capital goods and the Appellant was entitled for cenvat credit. The duty paid on capital goods was ₹ 17,14,480/-. The Appellant had produced a Chartered Accountant certificate dated 29.5.2007 along with Ledger Account .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

stay order vide Stay Order dated 24.5.04. Further, the appellant has also paid further sum of ₹ 1,50,000/- vide three TR6 challans on 20.5.06; 8.7.06 & 19.6.06. While the Respondent has appropriated only ₹ 9,00,000/- and did not bother to appropriate ₹ 15,00,000/- paid pursuant to stay order of the Tribunal and ₹ 1,50,000/-. Further, as a consequence of revised duty liability, the penalties imposed against the Appellants are required to be reduced as directed by the H .....

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 them the benefit of Cenvat credit on this account. We find that the impugned order mentions that the assessee was unable to furnish the break-up of the amount with reference to the capital goods namely, plant and machinery and moulds, and Revenue could not verify the admissibility of Cenvat credit on capital goods and did not allow the same. 7.1. The appellants have further grievance that they have made additional deposits of ₹ 15 lakhs as per the directions of the CESTAT vide Stay Order .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gned order reckoned it as ₹ 2,93,10,440/-. 8. When the Commissioner in the impugned order has not given the appellants benefit of Cenvat credit on capital goods, the appellants plead that after allowing them benefit of admissible Cenvat credit, the actual duty liability is to be revised. The appellants further state that consequent to the revision of duty liability, penalty imposed on them also has to be revised as directed by the Tribunal in its earlier order dated 1.2.2006. 8.1. The appe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ation No.8/02-CE dated 1.3.02 1,00,00,000/- 1,00,00,000/- Balance value of clearances 1,93,10,440/- 1,07,03,409/- Less: Deductions towards sales tax for the periods 2001-02 and 2002-03 3,98,082/- 3,98,082/- Balance value of clearances 1,89,12,358/- 1,03,05,327/- AV taking balance value as cum-duty AVx100/116 1,63,03,757/- 88,83,903/- C.EX duty at 16% Adv. 26,08,601/- 14,21,424/- Add: CEX duty for 1.2.2002 to 31.3.2003 28,23,031/- 28,23,031/- Total duty liability 54,31,632/- 42,44,455/- Less: Adm .....

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