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 →

CCE, Ludhiana Versus Ludhiana Beverages Pvt. Ltd.

2016 (11) TMI 775 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH

Demand - maintenance of separate records in respect of receipt, Consumption and inventory of Furnace oil used in the manufacture of dutiable final products and exempted final products i.e. Maaza as per Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - whether under Rule 6(3)(b) of the Credit Rules, the respondent is required to pay 10% of the total price of the exempted goods clear by them? - Held that: - the contention of the respondent throughout the investigation is that they are not availing cenv .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

althcare Ltd. [2009 (8) TMI 892 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] where it was held that no credit stand taken in respect of that part of dutiable furnace oil which has been used in the manufacture of exempted products. The demand at the rate of 10% of value of such exempted products is not called for. - Demand not sustainable - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/969/2009-Ex(DB) - FINAL ORDER NO. 61529/2016 - Dated:- 6-10-2016 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Devender .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s in respect of receipt, Consumption and inventory of Furnace oil used in the manufacture of dutiable final products and exempted final products i.e. Maaza as per Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent, as the Respondent has not maintained separate records for used of furnace oil utilized in the manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted goods, therefore, as per Rule 6(3)(b) of the Credit Rules, the respondent is required to pay 1 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Commissioner in his observation while dropping the demand has held that notice had tried to not avail any credit on that much quantity of input is used in the manufacture of exempted goods, although the quantity could not be factually recorded on day to month, on the basis of a self devised formula, which they had already disclosed to the department. The Commissioner also did not consider the records maintained by them as separate record under the provision of Rule 6(2), as they had maintained 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

they were taking Cenvat Credit on that amount of furnace oil which was used in the manufacturing of dutiable goods after deducting quantity of furnace oil used in the manufacture of exempted final product at the end of the month. The said quantity has been determined on the basis of a formula. The respondent has already been submitted the said formula to the department on 14.09.2006. It is his submissions that the Revenue has misinterpreted the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the Credit Rules. As 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

nd consumption of furnace oil used in exempted product but the in manufacture of dutiable final product. The Ld. Commissioner (A) has relied on the decision of Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. V, CCE, 1996 (81) ELT 3(SC). He submits that the respondent has complied with the provisions of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, therefore, the respondent is not required to pay 10% of the value of exempted goods. He further submits that the respondent is not covered under Rule 6 of CCR as the resp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ble evidence, moreover, the Ld. Commissioner (A) has held that during the proceedings have observed that the respondent is not availing the cenvat credit on furnace oil used in manufacture of final exempted product as per the formula and dropped the proceedings. In that circumstance, relying on the decision of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. reported in 2009 (248) ELT 311 (Tri. Ahmd.) wherein this Tribunal has observed as under: 2. Our attention stands drawn to the findings of the adjudicating authority, .....

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