Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Nipha Steels Ltd. Versus CCE-Kol-IV

2016 (8) TMI 749 - CESTAT KOLKATA

Modvat credit - inputs used in the manufacture of their finished goods - no documents were supplied to the Appellant as directed by this Bench - Revenue contended that relied upon documents were given to the Appellant along with the show cause notice, therefore, no need of supplying the same to the Appellant again - Held that:- if Order dated 10.07.1998 passed by this Bench was not acceptable to the Revenue then the same could have been appealed against. Adjudicating authority was not correct in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

favour of appellant - Appeal No. E/75372/14 - ORDER No. FO/A/75831/2016 - Dated:- 17-8-2016 - Shri H. K. Thakur, Member ( Technical ) Shri S.P.Siddhanta, Consultant for the Appellant Shri S.Mukhopadhyay, Supdt.(AR) for the Revenue ORDER Per Shri H. K. Thakur This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant against Order-in-Original No.46/Denovo/Commissioner/CE/Kol-IV/2013 dated 30.12.2013 passed by the Adjudicating authority under which a demand of ₹ 24,48,179.45 (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Fort .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in the present proceedings is disallowing of Modvat Credit on various inputs used by the Appellant in the manufacture of their finished goods. That the demand was mainly raised for not fulfilling the procedural requirements. 2.1 Ld.Consultant argued that this is the second round of litigation and earlier the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating authority by this Bench as per Order No.S-363, A-701/Cal/98 dated 10.07.1998 by passing following observations :- As the matter has been going on 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

ed by this Bench and the same directions given by CESTAT were taken before the Adjudicating authority during personal hearing. 2.3 Ld.Consultant also argued that extended period is not invocable as all the credit taking document copies were provided to the department and that the entire demand is time barred. 3. Shri S.Mukhopadhyay, Supdt.(AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue made the Bench go through para 5.3 of the Order-in-Original dated 30.12.2013 passed by the Adjudicating authority to ar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version