GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (8) TMI 752 - CESTAT BANGALORE

2016 (8) TMI 752 - CESTAT BANGALORE - TMI - Cenvat credit - ineligible credit taken wrongly - took Cenvat credit on basic customs duty, CVD, cess on textile and education cess instead of taking only on the countervailing duty and education cess as per law - appellant reversed the credit amount alongwith interest on being pointed out by the audit before issuance of SCN - Held that:- the issue is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE, ST .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ore [2014 (12) TMI 273 - CESTAT BANGALORE], the appellant is not liable to pay interest as well as penalty. Therefore, by following the ratio of decisions cited supra, impugned order is not sustainable in law. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief - E/486/2009-SM - Final Order No. 20645/ 2016 - Dated:- 19-8-2016 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Shri Raghavendra, Advocate For the Appellant Shri J. Harish, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The present appeal is dire .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

002. During the period from May 2005 to December 2005 the appellant imported 5 consignments of nylon yarn which is the main material of the final product and got the consignment released on payment of basic customs duty, CVD, cess on textile and education cess. It is further stated that the officer of the firm who was looking after excise matter inadvertently and without the knowledge of the appellant took the credit of basic customs duty amounting to ₹ 19,18,641/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs E .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rty Two Thousand and Twenty Five only) during January 2006 and February 2006 in the cenvat credit account. However on 27.03.2006 when the preventive officers visited the unit and checked the accounts and told the appellant that he has wrongly taken the cenvat credit. Then on the same day the appellant reversed the credit balance available amounting to ₹ 16,02,274/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Two Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Four only) and the balance amount of ₹ 3,49,380/- (Rupees Thr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

₹ 19,25,916/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixteen only) under Section 11AC besides demanding the differential interest of ₹ 1,22,371/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Two Thousand Three Hundred and Seventy One only). Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner who vide his order dated 18.02.2009 confirmed the Joint Commissioner s order while dismissing the appeal of the appellant. Hence the present appeal. 2. Heard .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mitted that the show-cause notice should not have been issued to the appellant in terms of the provisions of Section 11A (2B) of the Central Excise Act 1944. He also submitted that the appellant had reversed the credit before its utilization and wherever the credit had been utilized, the same was reversed along with interest and hence the question of demand of interest in respect of the credit reversed before utilization and imposition of penalty on the ground of suppression of facts does not 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

(vi) SRF Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai 2012 (280) 554 (Tri.-Chennai) 3.1. He also submitted that the show-cause notice for demand of interest has been issued beyond the normal period of one year from the date of reversal of credit and hence the demand of interest is hit by limitation. 4. On the other hand the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order and further submitted that the appellant has overdrawn cenvat credit of ₹ 3,42,025/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Forty Two Thousand and Twenty .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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