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 →

CCE & ST, Meerut-II Versus Merino Industries Limited

2015 (8) TMI 1314 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Cenvat demand - appellant removed certain capital goods outside their factory premises for carrying out job work - job work goods not received after processing within a period of 180 days under rule 4 (5) (a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that:- in view of the statutory provisions as contemplated in Rule 4(5)(a), the respondent is required to reverse the cenvat credit. The impugned order, dropping adjudged demand is not in conformity with the said statutory provisions and as such the s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ent of section 35B(4) of the Central Excise Act 1944, the matter should be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for considering the limitation aspect involved in the present case. - Appeal allowed by way of remand - E/60179/2013 EX. [SM] - FINAL ORDER NO.54064/2015 - Dated:- 27-8-2015 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Present for the Appellant : Shri R.K.Gupta, D.R. Present for the Respondent : Shri S.Sunil, Advocate ORDER The brief fats of the case are that the respondent is engaged in 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

processing within a period of 180 days as provided under rule 4 (5) (a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In view of this, the Department initiated proceedings against the respondent and confirmed cenvat demand of ₹ 25,78,578/- alongwith interest and also imposed equal amount of penalty. In appeal against the adjudication order dated 12.12.2012, the Commissioner (Appeals) by the impugned order has set aside the demand on the grounds of revenue neutrality as well as in view of the fact 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

l from the factory, and thus, appellant is statutorily required to reverse an amount equivalent to cenvat credit taken on such capital goods. 3. Shri S. Sunil, the ld. Advocate for the respondent reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order. He further submits that the show cause proceedings initiated by the Central Excise Department are barred by limitation of time. According to him, the fact of sending the goods on job work basis to the adjacent factory of the respondent was known to .....

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