Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Vivo Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. Versus CC, New Delhi

2017 (1) TMI 530 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

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 Credit Rules, 2002 arises where inputs are p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

novo assessment, but within a period of four months - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Customs Appeal Nos. 52876 -52879 of 2016 - 50035-50038/2017 - Dated:- 5-1-2017 - Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Sh. Abhinav Jaganathan, Advocate for the Appellant Sh. K. Poddar, 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-I/Import/ 586 to 590/ 2016 dated 29.06.2016 passed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

spect 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 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hrough the material available on record. From the records, it appears 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 at the rate of 12.5% as provided under Schedule 1 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 3. In this regard S. No. 263A (from 1.3.2015 onwards) of Notific .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| 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