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

2016 (9) TMI 1170 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

2016 (9) TMI 1170 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD - 2016 (342) E.L.T. 294 (Tri. - All.) - Recovery of Cenvat credit - Reversal of Cenvat credit under Rule 6(3) passed on to the buyers - laminates manufactured by appellant - Department alleged that appellants wrongly paid Central Excise duty and wrongly passed on Cenvat Credit to their buyers - Held that:- if Cenvat Credit was not admissible to them, then the Revenue should have issued show cause notice for reversal of Cenvat Credit availed by them. The show .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri K.K. Anand, Ms. Surabhi Sinha & Shri Kumar Vikram, all Advocates for the Appellant (s) Shri Rajeev Ranjan Jt. Commissioner, (A.R.) for the Department ORDER The present appeal is arising out of the Order-in-Original No.20/COMM/NOIDA/2009 dated 11.05.2009 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Custom, Noida. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture/production of Printed plastic Laminated Films, Printed Pouc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. The contention of the Revenue was that as ruled by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Metlex (I) Pvt. Ltd. reported at 2004 (165) E.L.T. 129 Supreme Court (S.C.), the appellants were not required to pay Central Excise duty on laminates manufactured by them. It was alleged that the appellants wrongly paid Central Excise duty and wrongly passed on Cenvat Credit to their buyers. It was further alleged that appellants were not admissible to take Cenvat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ashmir through its Interim Order dated 31.12.2007, allowed the unit manufacturing similar product in the jurisdiction of said Hon'ble High Court to pay duty. Therefore, they were also paying duty and there is nothing wrong in paying duty on laminates and since the goods on which amount under Rule 6(3)(b) of said Rules is demanded are duty paid goods, the demand is unsustainable. 4. The Original Authority decided the said show cause notice through the impugned Order-in-Original dated 11.05.20 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ble to the facts of this case. They further contended that they never manufactured dutiable and exempted goods at the same point of time and that no evidence has been adduced by the Ld. Commissioner in his findings regarding the same. The Ld. Commissioner has also not given the details about which the same were dutiable and exempted goods. The Ld. Commissioner has also pointed out that the appellants have wrongly taken Cenvat Credit on the raw materials, since the final product laminates manufac .....

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