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 →

Supreme Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai

CENVAT credit - return goods / rejected goods - Polyethylene film and bags falling under Chapter 39 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. - Whether the reversal of CENVAT credit on the ground that the appellant was not in a position to show as to what kind of material has been crushed or reprocessed and whether it is from the scrap generated during the course of manufacture of finished goods or the goods rejected from the customers, justified? - Held that: - I find that the sai .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ross objection raised by the appellant - appeal disposed off. - E/245/12 - A/87253/16/SMB, M/87254/16/SMB - Dated:- 25-4-2016 - Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Ms.Aparna H. Advocate for appellant Shri.Ashutosh Nath, Asst. Comm. (AR) for respondent ORDER 1. The appellant, M/s. Supreme Industries Ltd. are the manufacturer of Polyethylene film and bags falling under Chapter 39 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant was receiving certain goods returned by the buyers due 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

ccountal of goods received from the buyers on which they had availed Cenvat Credit under Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant gave a detailed accountal of goods in following four categories: a) Statement showing return and receipt of Plain Polyethylene films from M/s.Cargil Foods India Ltd. and M/s.Parekh Foods and clearance on payment of duty equal to or more than credit taken, after subjecting to the process of printing to other parties like M/s.Maheshwari Refinery, M/s.Dha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

atement showing the scrap arisen during printing, re-winding, re-sealing, re-treatment, agglomeration and manufacture of re-generated granules. 2. After analyzing the data, the Additional Commissioner confirmed the demand of ₹ 2,70,897/-. He also imposed an equivalent amount of penalty under Section 11AC. In respect of category (d) above, the appellant had paid an amount of ₹ 2,97,424/- in respect of scrap cleared which had arisen during printing , re-winding, re-sealing, re-treatmen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on value. Against this, appeal of the revenue the Supreme Industries Ltd. filed a cross objection challenging the confirmation of demand of ₹ 2,70,897/- and penalty and interest thereon, which they had already deposited. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand of ₹ 2,97,424/-. He however, gave the following findings in respect of the demand of ₹ 2,70,897/- which was confirmed by the original adjudicating authority. 6. I have considered the grounds of appeal, available r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

son to interfere with this part of the order challenged by the assessee at the time of filing cross objections. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that they had challenged the confirmation of ₹ 2,70,897/-, in their cross objection and therefore, it cannot be said that no appeal was filed. He argued that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is incorrect and needs to be set aside for this reason itself. She further argued that ₹ 2,97,424/- was already paid by them and there .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lied on the decision of Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Modi Rubber Ltd. Vs. UOI - 1987 (29) ELT 502 (Del.). 5. I have gone ground the rival submissions. I find that the appellant in their cross objection before the Commissioner (Appeals) have raised the issue regarding correctness of confirmation of demand of ₹ 2,70,897/- as well as imposition of penalty and the interest thereon. The observations of Commissioner (Appeals) to the effect that the said portion of the confirmation .....

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