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. Pacific Organics Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I

2016 (8) TMI 540 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Cenvat credit - recovery of inadmissible credit - availed simultaneous Cenvat credit and depreciation under Income Tax Act, 1961 - impermissible in terms of Rule 4(2) and Rule 4(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 - Held that:- Rule 4(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2001/2002 has a clear provision that if the depreciation is availed under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the duty suffered on capital goods the Cenvat Credit of the said amount cannot be allowed. Therefore both the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d. - Decided against the appellant - Appeal No. E/1555/2006 - Order No. A/87615/16/EB - Dated:- 21-1-2016 - SHRI RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Shri N.S.Patel, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri V.K. Kaushik, Asstt. Commr. (A.R) ORDER PER : RAMESH NAIR The appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. BR/206/Th.II/2006 dt. 07.12.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone-I, whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) 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

Rule 4(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001. Therefore a show cause notice was issued proposing to demand and recover inadmissible credit of ₹ 1,84,369/- with interest and to impose penalty. The show cause notice was adjudicated whereby the demand, interest and penalty was confirmed. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original dt. 31.5.2005 the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), which was rejected. Therefore the appellant is before us. 3. Shri N.S.Patel, Ld. Counsel for .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

when they had not taken the Cenvat Credit on balance 50% credit, they had availed the facility of depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore there was no intention of availing wrong Cenvat Credit accordingly there is no suppression of fact or mis-declaration on the part of the appellant, hence demand is time barred. He placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) Roots Cast Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. Coimbatore-2007 (216) E.L.T. 448 (Tri.-Chennai) (ii) Co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion under Income Tax Act, 1961. In terms of Rule 4(4) no exception was provided. As per the provision if the depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is availed on the duty suffered on the capital goods, Cenvat Credit of the said duty is not admissible. Therefore the appeal is not maintainable. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that the fact is not under dispute in respect of Cenvat Credit of 50% availed, they have also admittedly c .....

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