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

2016 (10) TMI 678 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

2016 (10) TMI 678 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD - TMI - Taking credit of of duty paid by the SEZ unit on returned goods - CENVAT credit - whether the appellant manufacturer who cleared finished goods to M/s DLF Ltd (SEZ Developer) under bond without payment of duty and the same were again returned to the appellant by M/s DLF Ltd (SEZ Developer) under bonded Challan for replacement, and on failure of the appellant to replace in the time permitted M/s DLF Ltd. (SEZ Developer) deposited the Excise duty, and c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l Excise Rules, 2002 does not come in the way in denying the credit. I hold that the appellant is entitled to take credit under Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules as they have admittedly received the goods under proper documents reflecting the duty involved and the said duty have been admittedly paid on the removal of the goods, being the SEZ Developer, to the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - APPEAL No. E/51912/2015-EX[SM] - Final Order No. 70980/2016 - Dated:- 7-10-2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eveloper) under bond without payment of duty and the same were again returned to the appellant by M/s DLF Ltd (SEZ Developer) under bonded Challan for replacement, and on failure of the appellant to replace in the time permitted M/s DLF Ltd. (SEZ Developer) deposited the Excise duty, and claimed reimbursement from appellant, the same was taken credit of by the appellant, whether the said credit was rightly taken by the appellant. 3. The brief facts are that the appellant manufacturer of Bars and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vide pre-authenticated Challan under rule 27(9) of SEZ Rules, 2006 wherein the Challan is marked "for removal of defective goods to domestic tariff area for replacement, not for sale defective material for replacement, material removed vide permission No. Cus/DLF/Misc./2000/87 dated 05/12/2008" giving the value and the duty involved. Accordingly, vide 8 such Challans the total goods supplied was returned. As the appellant manufacturer could not replace the defective goods within the t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

084/- vide Entry No. 2162 dated 31/08/2009 in their Cenvat register. Subsequently, the appellant reversed the Cenvat credit so taken vide Entry No. 3091 dated 11/11/2009. The goods so received back from DLF SEZ were entered in the daily stock register and thereafter removed on payment of duty to a separate set of buyers. The appellant thereafter made an application before the Commissioner on 5th January, 2011, praying that they be allowed to take Cenvat credit of ₹ 10, 57, 084/- paid by th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of Central Excise Rules, 2002, but as per the said rule it appeared, that this rule applies in respect of goods on which duty has been paid at the time of removal and the said goods are subsequently brought back to the factory. The show cause proposed to disallow the Cenvat credit of ₹ 10, 57, 084/- as wrongly taken with further proposal to appropriate from the amount already reversed along with interest and penalty was also proposed. 4. The Show Cause Notice was adjudicated vide Order-in- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Addl. Commissioner/M-II/2014-15 dated 12/09/2014 observing that Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 clearly suggest that it is applicable only in respect of those situations where duty had been paid on the finished goods at the time of their initial removal from the factory. Under the facts and circumstances it was held that it is clear that the provision envisaged under Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, have not been followed properly. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribuna .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that the appellant have entered the goods in the stock register and thereafter removed the same on payment of duty to other buyers. It is further urged that under the provisions of Rule of Cenvat Credit Rules, particularly Rule 3, the goods has been admittedly received on payment of duty, the appellant is entitled to take Cenvat credit of the same. The ld. Counsel further urges that it is not a case of clandestine removal, the goods were removed under proper ARE -1 procedure under bond to the SE .....

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