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. Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd., Versus Commissioner Of Central Excise Customs & Service Tax Bengaluru – III

2017 (2) TMI 58 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Reversal of Cenvat credit - Notification No.10/1997 dated 01.03.1997 - Held that: - There is no dispute about the fact that University of Horticulture Sciences is covered by the said expression and thus the good supplied to the said university would get covered by the Notification in question - When the issue was only limited to the entitlement of exemption available to the appellant – assessee or not, the Tribunal ought to have limited its judicial scrutin y to that extent only. The Tribunal Co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

not only relegate the authority to examine the said aspects but has made a concluding observations that as a consequence of the exemption available, the assessee would not be entitled to the cenvat credit of duty paid on various inputs used in the manufacture of DG Sets - If the matter is to be examined limited to the question formulated, it can be said that the aforesaid observations made by the Tribunal are exceeding the scope of the appeal - Decided in favor of the assessee. - C.E.A. No. 57 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

making observations after having found that the exemption was available to the appellant on the Diesel Generating Sets (hereinafter referred to as DG sets for the sake of brevity) sold to Horticulture University. We have heard Mr. K.S. Jain, party-in- person/appellant and Mr. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, learned Counsel for the respondent. 3. We may record that the appellant has preferred the appeal by raising 4 substantial questions of la w. But, in our view, only one question of law may arise and the s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

at as per the appellant, it is manufacturing DG sets, which i s dutiable goods. However, since some DG sets were to be sold to the Horticulture University and for the sale of DG sets to such Horticulture University, exemption was available under the Central Excise Notification dated 1.3.1997, they were cleared without payment of duty. The authorities under the Central Excise Act issued Show-Cause notice calling upon the appellant to show cause as to why the exemption availed of should not be hel .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ied in appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority maintained the duty but allowed the appeal so far as the imposition of penalty. It appears that, thereafter further appeal was preferred before the Tribunal by the appellant and in the said appeal by the impugned order, the Tribunal found that the exemption was available to the appellant and allowed the appeal to that extent. However, the Tribunal made further observations, which reads as under:- 4. ............... .... Fur .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nal. 5. Be it recorded that so far as the availability of the exemption to the assessee, there is no counter appeal by the Department. Therefore, we need not discuss the aspect as to whether the exemption is available by the assessee or not? The only aspect needs to be addressed is whether the Tribunal is justified in making the aforesaid observations while finally disposing of the appeal or not? 6. Be it recorded that the claim of the appellant in the appeal before the Tribunal was that it is e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

The said notification grants exemption to the Scientific and Technical Instruments, Apparatus, Equipments, Accessories and spare parts of the said equipments etc when supplied to public funded research institution. There is no dispute about the fact that University of Horticulture Sciences is covered by the said expression and thus the good supplied to the said university would get covered by the Notification in question. However the benefits stand denied by the lower authority on the sole groun .....

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