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 →

Ecoboard Industries Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III

2017 (3) TMI 500 - CESTAT MUMBAI

CENVAT credit - manufacture of plain laminated particle board falling under Chapter 44.06 of Central Excise Tariff - denial of credit on the ground that the finished goods were cleared under Nil rate of duty in terms of Rule 6(1) of CCR, 2002, credit of duty paid on input which is used in the exempted goods is not admissible - interest - penalty - Held that: - whatever stock of input as such lying in stock as on 4-2-2004, appellant is not entitle for the Cenvat credit. Accordingly credit is admi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing in stock, appellant is liable to pay the interest - appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant. - E/137/06 - A/85816/17/SMB - Dated:- 10-2-2017 - Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) None for the Appellants Shri. Sanjay Hasija, Superintendent (A.R.) for the Respondent Order The fact of the case is that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of plain laminated particle board falling under Chapter 44.06 of Central Excise Tariff. The duty leviable on the said goods is on adval .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mption on 4-2-2004 stock of finished goods, goods manufactured from stock of work in process and inputs lying in stock and thereafter were cleared by the appellant at Nil rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 12/2004 dated 4-2-2004. Show cause notice was issued contending that after 4-2-2004 the finished goods were cleared under Nil rate of duty in terms of Rule 6(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, credit of duty paid on input which is used in the exempted goods is not admissible. The adjudica .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

205(Tri. Del)] (b) Marudhar Agrico Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II[2012(285) ELT 114(Tri. Del.)] (c) Albert David Ltd Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Meerut [2003(151) ELT 443(Tri. Del.)] 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. 5. I find that the similar issue has been considered by the Larger bench of this Tribunal in case of Commissioner of C. Ex., Rajkot Versus Ashok Iron & Steel Fabricators [2002 (140) E.L.T. 277 (Tri. - LB)]. A .....

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