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

2016 (10) TMI 182 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

2016 (10) TMI 182 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - TMI - 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y - Held that:- However, I find that the Appellant 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. Rajasta .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r Revenue : Shri A Mishra, Authorised Representative 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 ra .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ppeals), who rejected their Appeal. Hence, the 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 liabi .....

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