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 Variance Versus Commr. of Central Excise, Kolkata-V

2017 (3) TMI 457 - CESTAT KOLKATA

CENVAT credit - denial on the ground that no evidence was adduced before the Adjudicating Authority on behalf of the appellant to show that the subject goods were received in the factory and used in the manufacture of final product - Held that: - substantial benefit of credit cannot be denied so long as it can be proved that the good are duty paid and received in the factory and are used in the manufacture of final product. These are all procedural and technical lapses, which are curable in natu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed by Commr. (Appeals) of Central Excise, Kolkata, whereby the ld.Commissioner rejected the appeal filed by the appellant and upheld the order-in-original dated 30.01.2012 on the purported observation that the appellant had availed and utilized CENVAT Credit to the tune of ₹ 54,144.97 on the basis of 16 number of invoices issued by the supplier, M/s Micro Inks to the appellant. 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of printing ink falling under Central Excise .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

0, Phears Lane, Kolkata 700012. It has been alleged that the aforesaid amount of cenvat credit of ₹ 54,144.97 was irregularly taken and utilized by the appellant and therefore, the same was payable along with appropriate interest in terms of Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant had debited ₹ 10,000/- vide RG 23A Part II, Sl.No.3 dated 12.11.2010 and intimated the same to the Department. Show-cause notice was issued as why :- (a) the amount of ₹ 44,144.97 i.e. (Rs .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

,144.97 was confirmed along with interest a sum of ₹ 10,000/- was appropriated and penalty of Rs..44,144.97 was imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The ld.Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal and upheld the Order-in-Original. Hence the present appeal. 3. Shri B. N. Pal, ld.Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, filed a copy of Form of ER I, Form of RG-23A Part II, Consignment Note issued by proprietor and copy of the Day Book Register of the Appellant. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s office of the proprietor's father. After our negotiation with them they acquired the said premises to start their ink workshop. However, since all the meetings had taken place at the proprietor's father's office, and initially we had defined the customer in our system with 10, Phears Lane address which was later corrected to 14E, Bondel Road, Kolkata 700019 when brought to our notice. However, please note that all the raw materials in question (i.e. from December, 2006 onwards) was .....

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