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 Risansi Industries Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur

2016 (8) TMI 1025 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

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 not find any allegation in the show cause notice that the appellants had not p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ess 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 through final order No. 560-61/06-CE dated 12.07.06. Subsequently, through miscell .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

or 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 credit amounting to ₹ 53,37,815/- availed on rubber was disallowed hol .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 central Excise duty and that there is no allegation in the show cause notice th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

put 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 order. 3. We have carefully taken into consideration the rival submissions. We fi .....

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