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

2017 (2) TMI 613 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

2017 (2) TMI 613 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD - TMI - CENVAT credit - manufacture of Yeast classifiable under Tariff Item No. 21022000 of the schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Held that: - there is no co-relation of raw material and final product - there cannot be reversal of credit unless it is irregularly taken. - The said SCN has not made any allegation in respect of credit except credit of ₹ 2,27,130/- that the credit was taken irregularly. Therefore, we find that Cenvat credit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. Nadkarni, Advocate, for Appellant Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Joint Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per Anil G. Shakkarwar The present appeal is filed by the appellant, M/s Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd., against Order-in-Original No. 03/Commissioner/LKO/CX/2009 dated 15/04/2009 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, M/s Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd., were engaged in the manufacture of Yeast classifiable under Tariff Item No. 21022000 of the sc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

/-, ₹ 3,36,172/-, ₹ 1,95,380/-, ₹ 1,88,2012/- were not admissible to the appellant. It also appeared to Revenue that Cenvat credit of ₹ 2,27,130/- availed by appellant after 28/02/2008 was also not admissible to the appellant. Therefore, a Show Cause Notice No. 15/Commissioner/LKO/2006-07 dated 28/02/2007 was issued to appellant wherein it was stated that the closing balance of Cenvat credit as on 28/02/2006, as per account maintained under Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

was not admissible and contented that the Cenvat credit availed was on such inputs which were brought into the factory when the final product was dutiable. The Original Authority did not appreciate the contentions and confirmed the demand and imposed penalty of equal amount. Aggrieved by the said order appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. The appellant contended that in so far as the credit of amount except for ₹ 2,27,130/-, is concerned the credit was availed on inputs and capital goods .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that reversal of credit by Excise Authorities is permissible only when credit is taken illegally or irregularly and contended that in the present case the show cause notice could not establish that the said credit was taken irregularly except for credit of ₹ 2,27,130/-. 4. Heard the ld. D. R. who has supported the impugned Order-in-Original. 5. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dai Ichi Karkaria in Para 17 has ruled as foll .....

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