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

M/s Modern Insulators Ltd. Versus CCE & ST, Jaipur

2016 (11) TMI 232 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

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 amendment carried out in sub-Rule (6) of Rule 6 vid .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 the Department. In the present case, we find 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

ngly, 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 order dated 07/11/2012 of Commissioner (Appe .....

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 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 Commissioner (Appeals) dated 07/11/2012. 2. The .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

arried 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 this case. 4. We have heard both the sides 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

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 nothing in the amending notification to indicate .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d 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). In the absence of any indication to the effe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 appellants on the demand confirmed by the lowe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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