Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (12) TMI 83 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2016 (12) TMI 83 - CESTAT MUMBAI - TMI - Whether M/s SMV Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (main appellant) is eligible to avail CENVAT Credit of additional Excise duty, which was paid by the Sugar factory or otherwise, and whether the appellant No. 2 i.e. individual is also liable for penalty? - Held that: - The Rule 7(1)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 for the period in question indicate that the supplementary invoices issued by the manufacturer or importer of inputs is to be considered as a document for av .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

actory has issued earlier invoices for the clearance of sugar for the period prior to 1.3.2003. The supplementary invoices which was issued by the registered dealer cannot be a document for availment of CENVAT Credit, as the said supplementary invoices did not indicate that the manufacturer has paid any excise or additional duty but is a invoice issued by the dealer in his capacity as a registered dealer for not issuing proper duty paying documents at the first instance. In my considered view, 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

d that also for issuing of supplementary invoices to the purchaser of goods. In view of this, I set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant No. 2, who is a registered dealer. - Appeal disposed off - decided against M/s SMV Beverages Pvt. Ltd. and in favor of individual appellant. - E/3376/16 & E/34/07 - A/93644-93645/16/SMB - Dated:- 1-11-2016 - Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) None for Appellant Shri S.V. Nair, AC (AR) for Respondent ORDER These two appeals are directed against Ord .....

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 duty, which was paid by the Sugar factory or otherwise, and whether the appellant No. 2 i.e. individual is also liable for penalty. 5. From the records I find that this is the second round of litigation. In the first round, the matter was remanded back by the Tribunal to the first appellate authority to reconsider the issue afresh. The issue that falls for consideration is that whether the sugar factory has cleared sugar on payment of Central Excise duty and additional excise duty levied under .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tory. It was noticed that the main appellant availed the CENVAT Credit in the month of March, 03 i.e. consequent to the issue of Notification No. 13/2003-CE(NT) dated 1.3.2003 which notified for availment of use of credit of AED for payment of BED. The first appellate authority in the impugned order has reproduced he provisions of Rule 7(1)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 during the period, which was applicable in the case in hand. The said Cenvat Credit Rules for the period in question indicate .....

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