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 Nectar Lifesciences Ltd., Unit-II Versus CCE, Chandigarh-II

2016 (9) TMI 422 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH

Cenvat credit - various inputs - period involved is from 01.04.2007 to 30.04.2009 - duty paying documents were not having full and complete address of the appellants - some items were not classifiable as 'Capital Goods' in terms of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that:- it is found that the duty has been discharged by the appellants and there is no allegation that the goods have been diverted. No credit has been availed by Unit-I located in the same address across the road. Therefore, when all .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

for denial of credit on inputs in the present case. - Cenvat credit - capital goods like Asbestos, Gasket Sheets, Chequered Plates - classification not fitting into the category of 'Capital Goods' in terms of Rule 2(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that:- the nature of usage, as submitted by the appellants, that these are, in fact, used along with other capital goods for joining the pipes or fabricating the solvent recovery plant, and as such their use justifies their categorization as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ase, the said document contained all other relevant details and the ECC Code has been rectified by the suppliers on the request of the appellants. In the absence of any other ground for denial of credit, we find that the substantial benefit of credit on 'Capital Goods' cannot be denied on this procedural ground. - Decided in favour of appellant - E/1278/2011 - Final Order No. 61019/2016 - Dated:- 5-8-2016 - Mr. Ashok Jindal Member (Judicial) and Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) For the Ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d by the appellants during the period 01 .04.2007 to 30.04.2009. The total credit denied is ₹ 9,71,21,082/-. Out of this amount, an amount of ₹ 8,63,52,628/- relates to credit on inputs and ₹ 1,07,67,636/- relates to credit on capital goods. The original authority denied credit on these items and ordered the recovery mainly on the ground that the duty paying documents are not having full and complete address of the appellants. Some credit on capital goods was also disallowed on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that these items have not been received by the appellants or diverted for other purposes. (b) All the credits availed by the appellants were on duties paid on inputs and capital goods in terms of the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Some of the duty paid documents do not bear "Unit-II" was a substantial ground on which huge amounts of credits have been denied. It is submitted that the appellants have Unit-I and Unit-II situated at the same address across the road and the inputs .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of credit on capital goods, it is submitted that a total credit of ₹ 1,44,018/- has been denied on the ground that the goods do not qualify the category of 'Capital Goods' as their classification is under Chapter 59, 68 and 72. It is submitted by the appellants that these items were specifically used for joining pipes and in fabrication and setting up of Solvent Recovery Plant falling under Chapter Heading 8479. (e) Cenvat Credit of ₹ 93,22,980/- taken on capital goods was de .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n taken and returns filed as per the statutory requirements. There is no ground for alleging suppression of fact with intent to evade duty. Even if there is deficiency in some of the documents, the same cannot be the basis for invoking the extended period. 5. The learned AR reiterated the findings of the lower authority and submitted that the duty paid documents are required to contain the full and correct particulars of the appellants in terms of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and since 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

le input items. Due duty has been discharged on all these inputs by the appellants. We have also perused some of the invoices covering these inputs. Admittedly, the appellant's name with full address is figuring in these documents. However, some of the documents did not have the endorsement of Unit-ll. We noticed that the appellants' unit is not located in a place where door numbers etc. are specifically indicated. The unit is located in a village of Saidpura and Tehsil Derabassi, Distt. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rbon & Chemicals Ltd. vs CCE & ST, Gurgaon-ll, 2016 (41 ) STR 644 (Tri.-Del), the Tribunal held that, mere wrong mentioning of appellant's address in the bill of entry will not be a ground to deny the credit if the capital goods were physically available in the premises and the duty has been paid on the same. The Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court in Union of India vs Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd., 2011 (263) ELT 48 (Chhattisgarh), held that, non-observance of procedural condition of te .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

when the assessee has paid the duty at the time of import, they are eligible for credit on the said goods, when the goods have been received and used by them. The Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem vs Chemplast Sanmar Ltd., 2007 (208) ELT 208 (Tri.-Chennai), held that, when there is no dispute of receipt of the inputs in the credit taking unit and its utilization in the manufacture of final products in that unit, credit cannot be denied only on the ground of Plant No. II and III w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dit on capital goods, we find two main categories of such goods. As already discussed, credit on certain items like Asbestos, Gasket Sheets, Chequered Plates was denied on the ground of their classification not fitting into the category of 'Capital Goods' in terms of Rule 2(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. We find from the nature of usage, as submitted by the appellants, that these are, in fact, used along with other capital goods for joining the pipes or fabricating the solvent recovery .....

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