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 Dhanuka Agritech Versus C.C.E., Delhi-III

2016 (11) TMI 823 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH

Reversal of CENVAT credit - inputs in process, which was destroyed in fire - Held that: - the party had inadvertently reversed the cenvat credit in respect of inputs used in work in process alongwith the credit in respect of raw material in store at the time of fire accident. Later on, they realized their mistake that credit on inputs contained in the work in process was incorrect and applied for refund. The first contention of the revenue that the refund cannot be entertained under Section 11B .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

process need not be reversed - Appeal allowed. - APPEAL NO. E/2617/2012 - Final Order No.61509/2016 - Dated:- 7-10-2016 - Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Ms. Krati Somani, Advocate for the Appellant Shri R. K. Sharma, A. R. for the Respondent Per : Devender Singh This appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal Nou 183/BK/GGN/2012 dated 27.04.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi-III. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged 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

the manufacturing line at the time of breakout of fire in the factory. The refund claim filed by them was rejected by the original adjudicating authority on the ground that the refund claim application does not get covered under any provision of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. It was also rejected on merits on the ground that the party had not produced any evidence that the burnt goods had been put back to use in the manufacturing process and the grounds on which the insurance authorit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vs. CC [2014 (303) ELT 41 (Tri.Ahmd,)] - Hetoro Labs Ltd. vs. CCE [2015-TIOL-1849-CESTAT-Bang.] - Sreepathi Pharmaceuticals vs. CCE [2015-TIOL-1823CESTAT-Bang.] - cce vs. Cadbury India Ltd. [2015-TIOL-1407-CESTAT-Del.] She further argued that the lower authorities were not justified in rejecting the claim under Section 11B as the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of BDH Industries Ltd. vs. CCE - 2008 (229) ELT 364 (Tri-LB) had held that all types of refund have to be filed und .....

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