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 Akzo Nobel Coatings India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, LTU

2016 (9) TMI 42 - CESTAT BANGALORE

Cenvat credit - rejected/returned goods - credit took on the RBA series invoices and linked to their own original invoices reference - invokation of extended period of limitation - Held that:- wherever the appellant has been able to produce the documents correlating the return of the goods, he has been given benefit of the same and wherever the appellant has not been able to produce any document to substantiate their claim of return of the goods to the assessee as ordered by the Tribunal and the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Appellant Mr. Ajay Saxena, Commissioner(A.R.) For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 42/2010 dated 28.09.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), vide which he has upheld the Order-in-Original and rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that the appellants are manufacturers of Industrial Paints, Thinners and Powder Coatings falling under Chapter 32089029, 38140010 and 39073090 of the C .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

same in its record book. The Department objected to the fact that the appellant had taken credit amounting to ₹ 8,76,314/- based on the RBA series invoices and linked to their own original invoices reference. However, the appellant had not received the original and duplicate invoices raised by them when the goods were initially removed and also the credit on such returned goods had not been availed on the strength of customer s invoices. Further in the absence of any original document show .....

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 order dated 27.11.2007 disallowing the Cenvat Credit availed by the appellant on the rejected/returned goods and demanded interest under Section 11AB and penalty as per Section 11AC was invoked while invoking the extended period under proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 14 of the CCR, 2004. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the appellate Commissioner vide his order dated 07.3.2008 upheld the order-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

roduced xerox copies of the RBA invoices and IBA invoices. The original copy of the invoices could not be produced nor the invoice from customers could be produced. The original adjudicating authority vide his order dated 25.9.2008 confirmed the demand with interest and equal penalty. The appellant filed an appeal against the said order before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his Order-in-Appeal dated 24.3.2009 allowed the appeal by way of remand and on the second d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

been able to prove the return of the goods whereas this was not an issue alleged in the show-cause notice and therefore, basis for denial of Cenvat credit traverses beyond the scope of show-cause notice. He further submitted that due to the limitations imposed by ERP system, the appellant had to take credit on RBA invoices, which were relatable to the original Excise invoice. He further submitted that the appellant is entitled to take credit against the assessee s own duty paying documents as ha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sion, he relied upon the following case laws : (i) CCE Vs. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments [1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 (S.C.)] (ii) Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Vs. CCE (1996 (78) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.)] 7. On the other hand, learned Commissioner (A.R.) reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and submitted that the impugned order is perfectly in accordance with law because the adjudicating authority, after remand by the CESTAT, has examined each and every document furnished by the appellant and aft .....

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