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. Vinayak Steels Ltd. Versus CCE, Hyderabad

2016 (8) TMI 444 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

Admissibility of suo-moto re-credit - Whether the appellants could avail the re-credit of ₹ 18,95,888/- which was debited by them earlier under protest - Held that:- the issue stands covered by the judgments laid in Stumpp, Schedule & Somappa (P) Ltd. [2015 (9) TMI 1375 - CESTAT BANGALORE] and KMC Corporation Ltd. Vs. CESTAT, Chennai [2014 (1) TMI 1473 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. There is no stipulation in the Cenvat statute that an assessee is required to obtain prior permission from the jurisd .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

a, Advocate for the appellant Shri S.L. Karalia, Authorised representative for the respondent ORDER [ Order per Sulekha Beevi, C. S. ] The appellants are engaged in manufacture of sponge iron, MS ingots, TMT bars and are availing the facility of CENVAT credit on inputs and capital goods. During the period February 2008 to December 2008, the appellants supplied goods to units and developers in SEZ without payment of duty under Letter of Undertaking (LUT). The appellants were of the view that good .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and 16/01/2009 and informed the same to the Superintendent of Central Excise, vide letter dated 19/01/2009. 2. In spite of this payment, a show-cause notice dt. 12/02/2009 was served on appellants proposing demand of ₹ 2,18,46,185/- being 10% of the value of exempted goods (i.e. goods cleared to SEZ developer). Thus as per this notice, the department did not accept the reversal of credit made by appellant on the same credit taken on inputs. 3. After adjudication, the original authority vi .....

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.18,40,670/- towards BED + education cess ₹ 36,813/- + Secondary & Higher Education cess ₹ 18,405/- = ₹ 18,95,888/-) and informed the same to Superintendent vide letter dated 10/08/2009. They explained in the letter that the department having not accepted the reversal of credit made by the appellants by issuing notice and confirming the demand for payment of 10% of the value of the goods on the same allegation of non-admissibility of credit as the goods were supplied to SE .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ued which is the subject matter of the present appeal. According to department the appellant after reversing the credit of ₹ 18,95,888/- under protest which was the credit availed in respect of inputs used in manufacture of final products supplied to SEZ developer, took suo motto credit of the same amount, which is in contravention of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The original authority observed that there is no provision to take suo motto credit and confirmed the demand of ₹ 18,95,888/ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the appellant, the learned counsel Shri Lalit Mohan Chandana submitted that the appellants had reversed the credit under protest earlier only due to pressure from the department. In spite of this reversal, alleging inadmissibility of the same credit, department issued show-cause notice demanding 10% of the value of goods. Only after such notice, appellants took recredit of ₹ 18,95,888/- as there was a demand raised by department in respect of the same credit. He contended that taking re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2) ELT 45 (Mad.)] and CCE,C&ST, Bangalore Vs. Stumpp Schedule & Somappa (P) Ltd. [2015(319) ELT 146 (Tri. Bang.)]. 8. Against this, the learned AR supported the findings in the impugned order. He urged that the appellant cannot take suo motto credit. The appellant ought to have filed a refund application under Section 11B. That therefore the appellant having contravened the provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 by taking suo motto credit, the demand raised is sustainable. He drew suppo .....

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