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

2016 (8) TMI 1100 - CESTAT CHENNAI

2016 (8) TMI 1100 - CESTAT CHENNAI - TMI - Refund claim - acumulated Cenvat credit due to closure of factory - Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that:- it is found that in the various judgements, Courts have held that accumulated credit on account of closure of factory can be claimed as refund under Rule 5. Therefore, in view of the above, refund under Rule 5 is admissible for accumulated credit on account of closure of factory. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appellant were unable to carry on their operation at Athipet Factory. The Appellant had closed the factory on 31/07/2009. Pursuant to the closure, all the final products were cleared and there was an excess credit available in CENVAT Account to the tune of ₹ 50,45,522/-. The Appellant had filed a refund claim which was sought to be rejected by the department by way of issuance of show cause notice dt. 14.10.2010. The claim was rejected on the ground that refund is allowed only where accum .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

arat Raichandani, Advocate and the Revenue was represented by Shri M. Balamurugan, A.C. (AR).The Appellant re-iterated their grounds substantiated by a bunch of case laws which were in their favour. The Revenue re-iterated the contents of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully gone through the records and submissions made. The short issue to be decided is whether the appellants are eligible for refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 where the factory has .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

STAT Chennai The extract of ruling of UOI vs. Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd - 2006-TIOL-469-HC-KAR-CX is reproduced below for reference: "5. There is no express prohibition in terms of Rule 5. Even otherwise, it refers to a manufacturer as we see from Rule 5 itself. Admittedly, in the case on hand, there is no manufacture in the light of closure of the Company. Therefore, Rule 5 is not available for the purpose of rejection as rightly ruled by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has noticed that .....

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