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. Raj Petro Specialities Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Principal Commissioner of Central Excise, The Assistant Commissioner of Centrla Excise, The Commissioner of Service Tax

2016 (8) TMI 403 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Seeking quash of impugned order - invalid and contrary to settled legal principles - Service Tax Commissionerate on the same transaction proposed to demand service tax, whereas, the first respondent treated the same transaction as trading and an exempted service and has demanded an amount under Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules - both Commissionerate are taking contrary stands - - Held that:- the petitioner cannot maintain this Writ Petition to quash the impugned order, which is only a Show- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ice has been issued to the petitioner on 23.09.2014, by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, A B Division, Chennai I Commissionerate. Therefore, such issue cannot be taken to have attained finality and more particularly, when the petitioner has given a reply to the Show-Cause Notice. In such circumstances, this Court would not be justified in interdicting the proceedings at the stage of Show-Cause Notice. - Period of limitation - Section 11A(7) of the Central Excise Act - Held that: .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ran For the Respondents : Mr. A. P. Srinivas ORDER Heard Mr.K.Jayachandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Panel Counsel, accepting notice on behalf of respondents. With the consent of the learned counsel on either side, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to a Show-Cause Notice, dated 24.02.2016, by which, the respondent has called upon the petitioner to explain as to why an a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AA of Central Excise Act, 1944 and why an amount of ₹ 6,21,222/- for the year 2011-12 debited by the petitioner and an amount of ₹ 5,04,316/- for the year 2012-13 debited by the petitioner should not be appropriated against the amount demanded as CENVAT credit apart from levying interest and cess. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned Show-Cause notice is not valid and contrary .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r objections to the same on 27.06.2013, in which, they informed the Authority that they have taken conservative approach to avoid any litigation and decided to reverse pro-rata Input Service Tax Credit applying the provisions of Rule 6(3)(iii) read with Rule 6(3A)(c) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and they reversed the appropriate input service tax credit for the years 2011-12 and 2012-13. Further, it is submitted that after effecting such reversal, they filed a revision claim under Section 11 B o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion 11 A(7) of Central Excise Act, it is submitted that the impugned proceedings initiated after a period of one year is wholly without jurisdiction. That apart, it is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision of ORISSA BRIDGE & CONSTRUCTION CORPN. LTD., Vs. C.C.E., BHUBANESWAR reported in 2011 (264) E.L.T.14 (S.C), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that invoking extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, is not justified. 5 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oner, the reversal of appropriate input tax done by them and the claim for revision effected by them and the impact of those proceedings on the impugned Show-Cause Notice is also a factual issue. That apart, the action initiated by the petitioner based on audit paras has not attained finality pursuant to the petitioner's claim for refund vide Application dated 26.09.2013. A Show-Cause Notice has been issued to the petitioner on 23.09.2014, by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, A B .....

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