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, Raipur Versus M/s. Godawari Power and Ispat Ltd.

2016 (9) TMI 476 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Validity of impugned order - power of commissioner (appeals) to admit / seek additional evidences - Rule 5 of Central Excise (Appeals) Rules, 2001 - drawings, designs and various detailed supporting charts as per Chartered Engineers certificate were produced before the Appellate authority and not before the Original Authority - Held that:- The Commissioner (Appeals) is well within his right to seek clarification to explain any evidences submitted before him, before appreciating the said evidence .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e merit reveals that the factual usage of various items have been examined by the Commissioner (Appeals) and he was guided by various decided cases including the application of user test as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. [2010 (7) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and in General Mills [2001 (7) TMI 118 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. The eligibility of the credit has been decided by the lower authority on such merits. - Decided against the Revenue - .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

at Credit Rules, 2004. Proceedings were initiated against them for demand and recovery of cenvat credit of ₹ 32,63,670/- availed by them on various M.S. Items like beams, angles, channels, flats, plates and rounds, etc. The Original Authority vide his order dated 31.10.2014 denied the credit and imposed equal amount of penalty. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order substantially allowed the respondents appeal except for an amount of ₹ 61,612/- held to be ineli .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

produced before the Appellate authority and not before the Original Authority. The impugned order has not been challenged on merits. 4. Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that as can be seen from the original order they have produced drawing layout, deployment of material handling system and Chartered Engineers Certificate about the usage of various items on which credit has been availed by them. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has examined these evidences along with supporting photo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion, it is an admitted fact that the usage of various items even in different types of fabrication and manufacture has not been questioned with any amount of corroboration by the Revenue to controvert the submissions made by the respondent before the lower authorities. The Original Authority as well as in the grounds of appeal, observation has been made regarding the Chartered Engineers certificate being not quantitatively validated. Though it is not clear as to the nature of such validation, it .....

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