Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Commander Watertech Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune

2016 (8) TMI 236 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Suo-mot availing credit of excess duty paid - The appellant mistakenly paid the excise duty on the transportation which was otherwise not required to be paid – extended period of limitation - Held that:– suo moto credit not permissible. Remedy available is refund claim under section 11B. No suppression of fact on the part of appellant. Demand cannot be raised under proviso to Section 11A(1), accordingly extended period cannot be invoked – appeal allowed on ground of limitation. - Decided in favo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

11 dated 29/10/2010 rejected the appeal. 2. The fact of the case is that appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Flushing System of Plastic on which they are paying duty on MRP based valuation under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant mistakenly paid the excise duty on the transportation which was otherwise not required to be paid and subsequently they have taken suo moto credit in their Cenvat account for the amount of duty paid on the freight. The said credit was made .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

was paid mistakenly which was not suppose to be paid, therefore they have taken suo moto credit during the period involved. There are various judgments available according to which suo moto credit was permitted, some are cited below: (a)Gujarat Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd Vs. Commr. C. Ex. Vadodara-II [2005(190) ELT 406(Tri. Mumbai)] (b)Visakhapatnam Steel Plant Vs. Commr. C. Ex. Vasakhapatnam[2002(149) ELT 708 (Tri. Bang.)] (c)Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore Vs. Indore Wire Company Ltd .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

conflicting judgments of the issue. The Larger Bench decided that suo moto credit is not permissible and only remedy is to file refund claim under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. He referred the judgment in case of BDH Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai[2008(229) ELT 369 (Tri. LB)]. He submits that since there were conflicting views and matter referred to the Larger Bench the extended period cannot be invoked as held by the Honble Supreme Court in case of Contin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

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


|| 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