GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
What's New Case Laws Highlights Articles News Forum Short Notes Statutory TMI SMS More ...
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (11) TMI 1086 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2016 (11) TMI 1086 - CESTAT MUMBAI - TMI - 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, ju .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fresh adjudication after considering the cross 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

omers. Essentially, the revenue sought an accountal 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 pa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

erated granules with virgin granules. d) Statement 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 pri .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ranules on which duty was paid on transaction 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 co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he case is not so. Therefore, I find no reason 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, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

have been reversed. For this purpose he relied 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Latest Notifications:

    Dated      Category

20-7-2017 Cus (NT)

18-7-2017 IT

18-7-2017 CE (NT)

18-7-2017 CE

18-7-2017 GST CESS Rate

15-7-2017 Kerala SGST

14-7-2017 Andhra Pradesh SGST

14-7-2017 Cus (NT)

14-7-2017 Cus

13-7-2017 Co. Law

13-7-2017 Co. Law

13-7-2017 ADD

13-7-2017 ADD

12-7-2017 Jammu & Kashmir SGST

12-7-2017 Gujarat SGST

12-7-2017 Gujarat SGST

12-7-2017 CGST Rate

12-7-2017 UTGST Rate

12-7-2017 UTGST Rate

12-7-2017 IGST Rate

More Notifications


Latest Circulars:

19-7-2017 Income Tax

18-7-2017 Customs

17-7-2017 Customs

14-7-2017 Income Tax

13-7-2017 Central Excise

13-7-2017 Customs

13-7-2017 Central Excise

13-7-2017 Customs

7-7-2017 Income Tax

7-7-2017 Goods and Services Tax

More Circulars



|| 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