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 Polygenta Technologies Ltd. Versus CCE, Nashik

2016 (2) TMI 989 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Denial of CENVAT credit - services related to certain modernization and renovation activities of the existing factory premises - whether denial of CENVAT credit on the ground that goods have been cleared availing benefit of exemption Notification No.30/2004-C.E. dated 09.07.2004 and Notification No. 04/2006-C.E. dated 01.03.2006, justified? - Held that: - I find that the appellant have availed the CENVAT credit in respect of input services of renovation and modernization of their factory for 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

ter the renovation and modernization of plant of the appellant. With these undisputed fact, I do not see any reason why the CENVAT credit on the input services should not be allowed when the service is related to the manufacturing of dutiable goods - CENVAT credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/826/2011-Mum - Final Order No. A/88193/2016-WZB/SMB - Dated:- 25-2-2016 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial). Shri D.H. Nadkarni, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

isable goods viz. Pet Chips falling under Chapter 390760 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In the show cause notice it was contended that the Appellant have cleared finished goods i.e. Draw Textured Yarn(DTY) and Pet Wash Flakes at NIL duty during the period May,2009 by availing exemption Notification No.30/2004-C.E. dated 09.07.2004 and Notification No. 04/2006-C.E. dated 01.03.2006. 3. The appellant availed CENVAT credit on inputs services for an amount of ₹ 3,49,72 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

view of the adjudicating authority, upheld the demand of CENVAT credit, however the penalty of equal amount of ₹ 3,49,724/- was reduced to ₹ 2000/- Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant is before me. 4. Shri D.H Nadkarni, learned Counsel appearing on behalf the appellant submits that the entire proceeding is on wrong footing that the CENVAT credit was taken and the goods were cleared under exemption. He submits that the CENVAT credit was taken in respect of renovation .....

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