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 →

Dharampal Premchand Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida

2016 (9) TMI 1095 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

Cenvat Credit - impact of subsequent decision of apex court - Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 - procurement of plastic laminated packing pouches as their inputs for packing their finished goods - Hon’ble Supreme Court ordered that plastic laminated packing pouches should not be used for packing of Chewing Tobacco on 11th May, 2011 and cenvat credit availed was for the period from March, 2009 to March, 2011 - Hel .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ope of said Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules to recover the Cenvat credit which was validly taken. I, therefore, hold that the Show Cause Notice is misconceived and therefore, I set aside the Show Cause Notice, Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. - Decided in favour of appellant - Appeal No. E/51087/2015-EX [SM] - Final Order No. 70852/2016 - Dated:- 9-9-2016 - Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri T. R. Rustagi, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Superintendent (AR) f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vail Cenvat credit of ₹ 2,00,879/-. Subsequently, Hon ble Supreme Court ordered that plastic laminated packing pouches should not be used for packing of Chewing Tobacco. The said order of Supreme Court was pronounced on 11th May, 2011 and the Cenvat credit, stated above, was taken by the appellant in their books of accounts for the period from March, 2009 to March, 2011, much before said pronouncement by the Hon ble Supreme Court. It appeared to Revenue that since the plastic laminated pac .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

The appellant submitted before the Original Authority that the plastic laminated packing pouches were in use for a long time for packing of products Chewing Tobacco and therefore, they were eligible inputs for a long time and Cenvat credit was availed on the same does not become ineligible because the said plastic laminated packing pouches material cannot be used for packing in the final product. They further stated that at the time credit was taken there was no final order passed by Hon ble Su .....

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 the stock. The Original Authority could not appreciate the contentions of the appellant. Through Order-in-Original No. 07/DC/N-I/2014-15 dated 23-12-2014, the Original Authority has confirmed the demand of Cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 2,00,879/- under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 and appropriated amount of ₹ 2,00,879/- debited from Cenvat account and further confirmed the demand of interest of & .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Act, 1944 since there is no provision of penalty under aforesaid Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 and set aside the said penalty imposed and modified Original Order to that extent. 3. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal dated 23-12-2014, the appellant preferred appeal before this Tribunal, the grounds inter-alia, are as follows:- (a) The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in not appreciating the fact that at the time, the credit was taken and at the time the credit was utilized, the fact .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

was termed as wrongly taken and there is no provision in the Central Excise Rules providing that if input is eligible on the date of taking credit and subsequently the same is banned from used the Cenvat credit already taken needs to be reversed. 4. Heard the ld. Counsel he has reiterated the grounds of appeal he has submitted a copy of Hon ble Supreme Court ruling in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Pune Versus Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. reported at 1999 (112) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.) wherein 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

 

 

 

 

 

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