Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
CGST - Acts + GST Rates GST Ntf. GST Forms GST - Manual GST - FAQ State GST Acts SGST Ntf. I. Tax Manual
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Central Excise Nagpur Versus Indorama Synthetics (I) Ltd.

Demand - CENVAT credit of NCCD paid on Partially Oriented Polyester Yarn (POY) consumed captively for manufacture of DTY - benefit of N/N. 46/2000-CE dated 17/05/2003 - Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 11A of the CEA, 1944 - Held that: - reliance placed on the decision of the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI Versus INDORAMA SYNTHETICS (I) LTD [2014 (10)675 - CESTAT MUMBAI] where similar issue was decided and it was held that once the exemption is availed, the qu .....

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 NCCD levy and would lead to huge leakages in revenue. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. Accordingly we set aside the same and hold that the appellant is liable to reverse the credit taken along with interest thereon as correctly held in the adjudicating authority's order. However, since the issue relates to interpretation of law, imposition of penalty is not warranted. - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue. - APPEAL No. E/645/07 - Order No. A/86907/16/EB - .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lants were paying NCCD on the POY consumed captively and were availing credit of the same. The said credit was used to pay NCCD on the FDY manufactured by them from the POY consumed captively. Notification No.46/2000-CE dated 17/05/2003 exempted DTY from the NCCD. A demand notice was issued seeking to recover an amount equivalent to ₹ 19,19,855/- in terms of Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 11A of the CEA, 1944 along with interest on allegedly wrong availment of credit. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

learned AR place the decision of the Tribunal in the respondent s own case. The Tribunal in the said case cited as 2014 (307) ELT 805 has observed as follows: 6.2 Notification No. 45/2003-C.E., dated 17-5-2003 grants exemption from National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) on goods falling under 54.02, if they are manufactured from goods falling under same heading 54.02. The purpose of exemption is that there is no double levy of duty (NCCD) on goods falling under 54.02 both at the stage of POY 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

e provisions of this rule and provisions of notification, the provisions of notification shall prevail. 6.3 Reliance placed by the respondent on the decisions (cited supra) is of no assistance as the facts in those cases are distinguishable. In Silvasssa Industries case, the dispute related to credit of NCCD taken on input (POY) used in the production of finished goods, which were exported. In that context, it was held that if the finished product is exported, the appellant would be entitled to .....

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 respect of any inputs may be utilised towards payment of duty of excise on any other final products, whether or not any such input is actually utilised in the manufacture of such other final products, if the said inputs have been received in the factory of manufacture on or after 1st day of March, 1997. However, in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 & 2004, which are applicable to the present case, similar provisions do not exist and therefore, the ratio of the said decision cannot be applie .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

5 could be availed or not. This Tribunal came to the conclusion that they cannot do so and held that the demand for NCCD credit is sustainable in law. This decision does not support the case of the respondent at all and in fact supports the case of the Revenue. Similarly, in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (cited supra), the question related to availment of Cenvat credit in respect of inputs, which were exclusively used in the manufacture of exempted products and demand of Cenvat credit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ible to avail exemption on the basis of duty payment on inputs and also simultaneously take credit on the said inputs, which could be utilised for payment of NCCD on some other inputs cleared as such. This would amount to availing double benefit, once by way of exemption from NCCD on the finished product under Notification No. 46/2003 and secondly by way of utilization of credit on POY cleared as such. Such grant of double benefit negates the very purpose of levy of NCCD as the credit taken can .....

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