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

2017 (1) TMI 527 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2017 (1) TMI 527 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - Benefit of N/N. 12/2012-CE - denial on the ground that the assessee has taken the credit - Subsequently, in SRF Limited vs. CC, Chennai [2015 (4) TMI 561 - SUPREME COURT], the Apex Court has interpreted the Condition No. 20 of Notification No. 06/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 (Sl. No. 122) which was identical to Condition No. 16 of Notification No. 12/2012-CE. It was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that no question of availing CENVAT credit under the CENVAT .....

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 in the light of judgements (supra), for denovo assessment, but within a period of four months - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Customs Appeal Nos. 52548 & 52557 of 2016 - 50033 -50034/2017 - Dated:- 5-1-2017 - Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Sh. Abhinav Jaganathan, Advocate for the Appellant Sh. S. K. Sheoran, AR for the Revenue ORDER Per: Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra: The present appeals have been filed against the order in appeal No. CC(A) CUS/D- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ect to the condition No. 16 the Notification No. 12/2012-CE, that the manufacturer should not have taken credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in respect of inputs and capital goods. The department is of the view that appellant has not satisfied the condition, so no benefit was given to the appellant. 3. Subsequently, in SRF Limited vs. CC, Chennai 2012 (318) ELT 607 (SC), the Apex Court has interpreted the Condition No. 20 of Notification No. 06/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 (Sl. No. 122) which .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t. 4. With this background, we heard Shri Abhinav Jaganathan, ld. Advocate for the appellant and Sh. K. Poddar, ld. AR for the Revenue. 5. We have gone through the material available on record. From the records, it is found that identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in the case of M/s L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC, Delhi (Customs Appeal No. 52638 52698 of 2016), where it was observed that: 2. On import of these mobiles phones, the appellant was paying additional customs duty .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oods. 4. However, owing to the consistent stand of the Department that the above mentioned condition could not be satisfied by imported goods, the appellant could not be satisfied by imported goods, the appellant could not claim the benefit of the said exemption. Finally, the Customs EDI system did not allow the Appellant to claim the benefit of the said exemption. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 6. Heard Sh. S. Vasudevan, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants .....

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