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

2016 (11) TMI 232 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (11) TMI 232 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - Demand and recovery of an amount equal to 10% of value of exempted goods cleared in terms of Rule 6 (3) (i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - no maintenance of separate account of inputs used for manufacture of exempted final products - Some exclusions are made for application of this provision under sub-Rule (6) of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that: - There is nothing in the amending notification to indicate the presumption that the amendm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

willful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of Excise Act or Rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty. We find the findings of the lower Authorities are devoid of merit in this regard. Admittedly the duty free clearances were entered in the ER-1 for the month of May 2009 and June 2009. The Original Authority records that Notification No. 6/2006-CE was not mentioned in the ER-1 and accordingly the appellants suppressed the fact from 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

confirmed amount in the present case. Accordingly, we set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant. - Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 55640 of 2013 - Final Order No. 54601/2016 - Dated:- 28-10-2016 - Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri Ankit Tothka, Advocate for the appellant Shri R. K. Manjhi, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent ORDER Per. B. Ravichandran The present appeal is against .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

m to demand and recover an amount equal to 10% of value of such exempted goods cleared in terms of Rule 6 (3) (i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The period involved is May 2009 and June 2009. The show cause notice was issued on 15/04/2010. The Original Authority confirmed a demand of ₹ 22,88,591/- and imposed equal amount of penalty under Rule 15 (2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 readwith Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. On appeal, this order was confirmed vide impugned order of Com .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ounsel further submitted that the amendment carried out by the above Notification in Rule 6 (6) (vii) should be treated as clarificatory and made available to the period of their clearance (May and June, 2009). He also contested the imposition equal amount of penalty. 3. Learned AR for Revenue opposed the contention and stated that the amendment had expanded the scope of the legal provision and clearly prospective. There is no legal sanction to treat the statutory amendment as clarificatory in 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

of this provision under sub-Rule (6) of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. During the period when the final products were cleared by the appellant, there is no such exclusion for Mega Power Projects in the application of Rule 6 (3). We find the appellant s plea that the amendment carried out in sub-Rule (6) of Rule 6 vide Notification No. 6/2010-CE dated 27/02/2010, should be considered clarificatory and apply to the clearances made in May and June, 2009, as legally unsustainable. There is not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

abricators Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Belapur reported in 2016 (334) E.L.T. 105 (Tri. Mumbai). The said decision dealt with regarding applicability of exclusion made under Rule 6 (6) for SEZ developer. It was interpreted that SEZ will include the SEZ developer operating within the zone and accordingly the amendment carried out later was held to be all along available. We find in the present case the amendment by Notification No. 6/2010-CE brought in new type of clearances for exclusion under Rule 6 (6). .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ven context. The substitution by Notification No. 6/2010-CE clearly brought in power projects of specific categories for exclusion from the application of sub-Rules (1), (2) and (3) of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. There is nothing to indicate that the clearances to these power projects should be considered for exclusion even before the amendment carried out by the said notification. We find no legal basis for such interpretation. Accordingly, we find no merit in the appeal filed by the 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

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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