Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner (Appeal) , Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-SURAT-II

2016 (10) TMI 182 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Appropriation of amount - clearance of inputs 'as such' on payment of duty on the transaction value rather than reversing the Cenvat Credit availed on such Inputs - duty short paid - differential duty paid before issuance of SCN - Held that:- it is the contention of the appellant that the Dept., has not adjusted the excess payment made by them while discharging the duty on the transaction value. However, neither they have established the said claim of excess payment before the authorities below .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

llant had cleared the inputs on payment of duty on the transaction value and the differential duty was discharged within one year of the initial payment by debiting their CENVAT account in Feb.2009. Also, there is no suppression of fact. Thus, the show cause notice issued after two years of payment for appropriation of the amount cannot lead to an inference that facts had been suppressed and longer period of limitation is attracted. In UOI Vs. Rajastan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. [2009 (5) TMI .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ntative ORDER Heard both sides and perused the records. 2. This is an appeal filed against OIA-CCEA-SRT-II-SSP-86-2013-14-U-S-35A-3 dt 27/6/2013 passed by Commissioner (Appeal), Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-SURAT-II. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant had cleared Inputs as such under Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 during the period March 2008 to Dec. 2008, on payment of duty on the transaction value rather than reversing the Cenvat Credit availed .....

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 present Appeal. 4. The Ld Advocate, for the appellants has fairly accepted that while clearing the Inputs as such they have paid duty on the transaction value without reversing the credit availed on the Inputs and it was under a bonafide mistake. He has further submitted that while discharging duty on the transaction value in some cases, the duty paid was more than the credit availed, hence the Dept. ought to have adjusted the same against the liability. It is his contention that since the pay .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version