Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (8) TMI 1025 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

2016 (8) TMI 1025 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD - 2016 (340) E.L.T. 582 (Tri. - All.) - Cenvat credit - rubber used in the factory - rubber used in excess quantity than required - Held that:- it is now settled that if following three conditions are satisfied then Cenvat credit cannot be denied. The conditions are that that the inputs have suffered Central Excise duty, inputs have entered the factory premises and inputs are used in the manufacture of final products that they are not cleared as such. We do n .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

law did not empower the adjudicating authority to decide how much is the excess quantity of inputs procured by the appellant. - Appeal disposed of - E/798-99/06(DB) - Final Order No. 70277-70278/2016 - Dated:- 26-5-2016 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar Member (Technical) Shri A.P. Mathur, Advocate, and Shri Abhishek Jaju, Advocate for Appellants Shri A.K. Goswami, Additional Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER These two appeals were initially disposed throu .....

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 quantity required by them. Another proposal in the show cause notice was for disallowing Cenvat credit of ₹ 1,47,648/- on the inputs found to be short in the factory of appellants. The third proposal in the show cause notice was for recovery of cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 2,04,683/- on steel inputs. Further, there was proposal for imposition of penalty on both the appellants. The said show cause notice was decided through impugned order-in-original dated 12/12/2005 wherein cenvat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lants are before this Tribunal. Learned Advocate on behalf of the appellants argued that they are challenging the denial of cenvat credit of ₹ 53,37,815/- interest on the same, penalty of equal amount and personal penalty imposed on Managing Director. He has argued that there is no allegation in the show cause notice that the said input i.e. rubber was not procured by the appellants and that there is no allegation in the show cause notice that the input rubber so procured did not suffer ce .....

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, 1944 provided that cenvat credit shall not be denied on any quantity of input going into waste. There is no provision of the law which authorizes Central Excise authorities to decide what is the optimum quantity of input to be procured for manufacture of unit quantity of finar product. Therefore, the adjudicating authority did not have authority of law to decide what was excess quantity of input used or procured. Learned Departmental Representative reiterated the contents of the impugned orde .....

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