GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
What's New Case Laws Highlights Articles News Forum Short Notes Statutory TMI SMS More ...
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (9) TMI 87 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2016 (9) TMI 87 - CESTAT MUMBAI - 2016 (44) S.T.R. 87 (Tri. - Mumbai) - Imposition of penalty - appellant contend that it is purely a matter of interpretation - Cenvat Credit in respect of construction services for the construction of guest house, staff quarters, flooring work at colony, septic tank of security barracks, club house, bank building, hawankund shed, temple etc. - Held that:- in this matter I observe that there are various contradictory judgments of Tribunals on the similar issue an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

facture of final product - Held that:- it is found that during the relevant period the appellant have been regularly submitting all the cenvatable invoices along with their monthly ER-1 return, as evident from the covering letter of monthly ER-1 return. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) admitted that on the issue of Cenvat Credit on construction services, there were contradictory judgments and the issue involved is purely the matter of interpretation of statute. This finding of the Ld. Commissioner .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t of the issue on admissibility of Cenvat Credit. Hence the impugned order is set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant - Appeal No. E/290/2011-MUM - ORDER NO. A/87829/2016-WZB/SMB - Dated:- 8-6-2016 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial). Vinod Awtani, C.A. for the Appellant. Shri R.K. Maji, Asstt. Commr. (A.R) for the Respondent. ORDER: Per: Ramesh Nair Appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. RBT/75/LTU/MUM/2010 dt. 30.11.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & 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

vices are not in relation to manufacture of final product. The adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original No. 16/LTU/2010/ADC/VMJ dated 19/03/2010 confirmed the demand of Cenvat Credit amounting to ₹ 17,78,562/-, imposed penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC and also ordered for recovery of interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who while disposing the appeal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is before me. 3. Shri Vinod Awtani, Ld. Chartered Accountant appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), has dropped the entire penalty on the ground that on the issue of Cenvat Credit involved in the present case there are contradictory judgments and the issue is purely matter of interpretation of statute. However, the Ld. Commissioner has not given relief on the time bar ground in respect of demand of Cenvat Credit on the ground that the appellant has not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ically submit that it is factually incorrect observation of both the lower authorities that the appellant have not submitted the details of construction service on which credit was availed. He submits that along with their monthly ER-1 Return therefore regularly submitting the copies of cenvatable invoices. In this regard, Ld. Chartered Accountant taken me to the copies of the covering letter of the monthly ER-1 Return for the period 2005 to 2007. He submits that as per the submission of all 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

CESTAT Mumbai (iii) M/s. Gujarat Guardian Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-II 2012-TIOL-1702-CESTAT-AHM (iv) M/s. Saurashtra Cement Ltd. Commissioner of Central Excise, & Service Tax, Bhavnagar 2015-TIOL-1954-CESTAT-AHM (v) CCE, Meerut-II Vs. M/s. Simbhaoli Sugars Ltd. 2013 (7) TMI 754-CESTAT New Delhi He further submits that it is admitted by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), the question involved in the present case is purely of a interpretation of law for this reason also exte .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

v) ITC Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem 2012 (285) E.L.T. 292 (Tri.-Chennai) (vi) Singh Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Cus. & C. Ex. Indore 2009 (14) S.T.R. 552 (Tri.-Del.) (vii) ITW India Ltd.Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad 2009 (14) S.T.R. 826 (Tri.-Bang.) (viii) South City Motors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi 2012 (25) S.T.R. 483 (Tri.-Del.) (ix) Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Commr. of S.T., New Delhi 2011 (24) S.T.R.307 (Tri.-Del.) (x) R .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is entitled for the credit even on merit also. In this regard he placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of CE & ST (LTU), Mumbai 2015 (11) TMI 100 CESTAT Mumbai (ii) Commissioner of Cus. & C. Ex., Hyderabad-III Vs. ITC Limited 2013 (32) S.T.R. 288 (A.P.) (iii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut Vs. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. 2015 (40) S.T.R. 379 (Tri.-Del.) (iv) ISMT Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. & C. Ex., Aurangabad 2015 (40) S.T.R.596 (Tr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tra Tech Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur 2015 (40) S.T.R. 284 (Tri.-Mumbai) (iii) Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II 2011 (270) E.L.T. 111 (Tri.-Del.) (iv) Infosys Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore 2015 (37) S.T.R. 862 (Tri.-Bang.) (v) Vikram Cement Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore 2009 (242) E.L.T. 545 (Tri-.Del.) (vi) Commissioner of C.Ex. & Customs Vs. Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd. 2011 (22) S.T.R. 610 (Guj.) He .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Chennai 2013 (29) S.T.R. 365 (Tri.-Chennai) (iii) Union of Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd. 2011 (265) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) (iv) Tech Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Pune-III 2015 (38) S.T.R.1200 (Tri.-Mumbai) He further submits that the interpretation for imposition of penalty and the invocation of extended period need not to be same. Therefore even though the Commissioner (Appeals) is dropping the penalty, invocation of extended period cannot be disputed as held in the decision of Executive En .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Latest Notifications:

    Dated      Category

20-7-2017 Cus (NT)

20-7-2017 GST CESS Rate

19-7-2017 IT

19-7-2017 IT

18-7-2017 IT

18-7-2017 CE (NT)

18-7-2017 CE

18-7-2017 GST CESS Rate

15-7-2017 Kerala SGST

14-7-2017 Andhra Pradesh SGST

14-7-2017 Cus (NT)

14-7-2017 Cus

13-7-2017 Co. Law

13-7-2017 Co. Law

13-7-2017 ADD

13-7-2017 ADD

12-7-2017 Jammu & Kashmir SGST

12-7-2017 Gujarat SGST

12-7-2017 Gujarat SGST

12-7-2017 CGST Rate

More Notifications


Latest Circulars:

20-7-2017 Goods and Services Tax

19-7-2017 Goods and Services Tax

19-7-2017 Income Tax

18-7-2017 Customs

17-7-2017 Customs

14-7-2017 Income Tax

13-7-2017 Central Excise

13-7-2017 Customs

13-7-2017 Central Excise

13-7-2017 Customs

More Circulars



|| 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