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. Coromandel Paints Ltd Versus CCE, Guntur

2016 (12) TMI 16 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

Irregular availment of credit - MS items - Held that: - At the foremost, it has to be seen that the period involved is October 2008 to June 2009 which is prior to the insertion of the explanation w.e.f. 07/07/2009 to the definition of inputs. The MS items are contended to be used for fabrication of Mezannine floor which is between the ground floor and roofing and used for the purpose of storing the packing materials. The finished products being paint and varnishes, these have to be packed and on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ugned order to the extent of demand of ₹ 1,28,341/- along with interest is set aside. Demand of ₹ 62,418/- is sustained. The penalties imposed are set aside. - Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - Appeal No.E/28174/2013 - FINAL ORDER NO.A/30865/2016 - Dated:- 9-9-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member(Judicial) Ms. A.S.K. Swetha, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Arun Kumar, Asst. Commissioner(AR) for the respondent. (Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.] The appella .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sued to the appellant alleging irregular availment of CENVAT credit on MS items. The appellants contested the issue for an amount of ₹ 1,28,341/-. After adjudication, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, interest and penalty. In appeal, the Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal. 2 On behalf of the appellant the learned counsel Ms. A.S.K. Swetha submitted that the appellants purchased MS angles and beams and utilized these items in the fabrication of Mezannine .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

edit was availed prior to 07/07/2009. 3. On behalf of the Department, the learned AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He also argued that the Mezannine floor fabricated using the MS items cannot be considered to be integral part of the manufacturing process. 4. I have heard both sides and perused the records. A show-cause notice was issued to the appellant proposing to deny credit to the tune of ₹ 1,90,759/-. Out of this, appellant accepted liability of ₹ 62,418/- and 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

 

 

 

 

 

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