New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (9) TMI 364 - CESTAT KOLKATA

2016 (9) TMI 364 - CESTAT KOLKATA - TMI - Cenvat credit - admissibility - credit took on documents, received from registered dealer without receipt of any inputs - no quantification of inadmissible credit has been done in the show cause notice by making reference to invoices and entries made in RG-23A Part-II - Held that:- in the absence of spelling out the allegation clearly in the show cause notice, appellant cannot be expected to explain his case. In view of the statement of partner of M/s. 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

2) TMI 1301 - CESTAT CHENNAI] that in remand proceedings penalty cannot be enhanced when department did not file any appeal against the first adjudication order where a penalty of ₹ 2.5 lakh was imposed. However, in the interest of justice it is ordered that a penalty of ₹ 1.00 lakh (one lakh) upon the appellant will meet the ends of justice in the present proceedings. Accordingly penalty imposed upon the appellant is reduced to ₹ 1.00 lakh under Rule 173 Q (1) (bb) of the Cent .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

interest, and penalty decided by Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV under Order-in-Original No.33/Commissioner/CE/Kol-IV/2012 dated 31.12.2012 as Adjudicating Authority. Appeal No.E/70118/13 has been filed by the Revenue against the same OIO dt. 31.12.2012 on the ground that entire credit of ₹ 24,76,172.43 was not admissible to the appellant as the allegations in the show cause notice are not refuted by the appellant. Cross Co-75596/16 has been filed by appellant in Appeal No.E/701 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on documents, received from registered dealer M/s. Ram Kumar Kamal Kumar, M/s. Saraswati Enterprises, Shree Shyam Re-rolling Mills and Shree Behariji etc., without receipt of any inputs. That only an amount of ₹ 2,47,844/- can be held to be inadmissible as per the statement dt.23.01.1996 of Shree Kamal Kumar Aggarwal partner of M/s. Ram Kumar Kamal Kumar wherein he has accepted that inputs are not sent. That there is no statement of the appellant that they have not received inputs alongwit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o more than ₹ 2.5 lakh as per following case laws:- (i) Western India Paints and Colour Co.(P)-vs.- Commr. Of C.Ex., Chennai [ 2002(142) E.L.T.402(Tri.-Chennai)]. (ii) Varalakshmi Exports vs.-Commr. Of Cus.(Seaport-Export), Chennai[2014(314) E.L.T.257(Tri.-Chennai)] 3. Shree A.Roy, Supt.(AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that as per remand Order No.A-1658-CAL/2000 dated 29.09.2000 all the documents were returned to the appellant on 22.04.1998. That appellant now cannot take 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

records that MA/75609/2016 and Cross CO/75596/16, in appeal No.E/70118/13 of the Revenue, has been filed after 3 years. The reasons for seeking condonation is that appeal filed by the Revenue was received in time but the same got misplaced. The reason explaining delay is not justified and are rejected. 6. On the issue of denial of cenvat credit appellant argued that no quantification of inadmissible credit has been done in the show cause notice by making reference to invoices and entries made 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

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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