New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
CGST - Acts + GST Rates GST Ntf. GST Forms GST - Manual GST - FAQ State GST Acts SGST Ntf. I. Tax Manual
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Posco (I) Pune Processing Centre Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Pune-I

Cenvat credit - denial of amount of ₹ 1.20 Crore - documents on which credit was taken are not proper - Held that:- the entire credit is related to 16 services which are specified under Rule 6(5). The credit was denied on the basis of a report submitted by Superintendent (Adjudication) that there are some discrepancies in the documents. However there is no finding of the Adjudicating Authority that the input service was not received or payments there against were not made by the appellant. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

credit is attributed to the trading activity. Therefore, the same is primafacie not admissible to the appellant. - Period of limitation - credit taken during the period 2008 to 2011 and the show cause notice was issued on 13-03-2013 - appellant have been submitting monthly returns alongwith details of Cenvat credit availed by them from time to time - suppression of facts - Held that:- the appellant is engaged in the manufacturing of final product and availing the credit on various services. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ent of excise duty. In the judgment cited by the appellant in the case of CCE vs Raghuvar (India) Ltd. [2000 (5)40 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], the issue has been settled in favour of the appellant. We further find that as against wrong availment of Cenvat credit, there cannot be made double demand i.e. one of an amount of wrongly availed credit and second an amount of Cenvat credit utilized out of the same wrongly availed credit. This exercise will clearly amount to duplication of demand of the s .....

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 Ld. Commissioner disallowed the Cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 1,97,62,992/-, confirmed the demand of Service Tax of ₹ 1,03,95,824/- and imposed the penalty of equal to both the amounts. 2. The fact of the case is that the Cenvat credit for an approxible amount of ₹ 1.20 Crore was disallow on the ground that the documents on which credit was taken are not proper such as no supporting documents were submitted, name of service recipient/ service provider is not reflected in the d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appellant out of wrongly availed credit of ₹ 1,97,62,992/-. The credit of ₹ 1,03,95,824/- was utilized for payment of duty. 3. Shri L. Badrinarayan, Ld. Counsel alongwith Shri Rajesh Ostwal, Ld. C.A. appeared on behalf of the appellant. He submits that as regard Cenvat credit of ₹ 1.20 Crore, the credit is on various services which are covered under 16 services as specified under Rule 6(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore irrespective of fact whether the services were us .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eof. Therefore, if at all, there are some discrepancies in the documents, only on that basis, Cenvat credit cannot be disallowed. He further submits that since the appellant was not granted the opportunity to explain the discrepancies whatsoever, there is a clear violation of principle of natural justice. 3.1 As regard Cenvat credit of ₹ 80 Lakhs, attributed to the trading activity, he submits that this demand is time barred for the reason that credit taken during the period 2008 to 2011 a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

disallowed, there cannot be additional demand on an amount utilized out of the said disallowed Cenvat credit. This will tantamount to double demand of the same amount. In this support, he placed reliance on the Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of CCE vs Raghuvar (India) Ltd. - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 311 (SC). 4. On the other hand, Shri Ajay Kumar, Ld. Joint Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that the Adjudicating Au .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

erefore, there is a suppression of fact on the part of the appellant and demand for extended period was correctly confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 6. As regard denial of credit of an amount ₹ 1.20 Crore, we find that the entire credit is related to 16 services which are specified under Rule 6(5). The credit was denied on the basis of a report submitted by Superintendent (Adjudication) that there are some discre .....

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