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 →

C.C.E. Delhi-II Versus M/s. B.R. Industries Ltd.

2017 (3) TMI 930 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

CENVAT credit - penalty - demand on the ground that appellant had imported 408.917 MT of laminated scrap during the year 2000-01 and they have suppressed the production of their final product under the guise of sub standard imported material by claiming more wastage - Held that: - there is virtually no evidence on record to establish the manufacture of final product and clearance of the same without payment of duty. There is no evidence of manufacture, their clearance and identification of the b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n copper ingots, etc. were falling under the Cenvat Credit facility. Scrutiny of their records revealed that they had availed Cenvat Credit on inputs i.e. Solder wire which was not used in the manufacture of their final product. Accordingly proceedings initiated for denial of Cenvat Credit of ₹ 5,38,367/- along with imposition of penalty, attained finality by the impugned order of Commissioner (A). Apart from above, demand of ₹ 14,12,237/- was also raised against the respondent on th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ere is virtually no evidence on record to show that they had manufactured excess quantity of their final product out of the said imported material. As the demand was based upon the assumption, original adjudicating authority vacated the show cause notice to that extent. 3. Being aggrieved with the order, Revenue filed the appeal before Commissioner (A). The appellate authority also rejected Revenue s appeal by observing as under: Regarding the Revenue s appeal, I find that the statement dated 17 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he appellants had submitted that the scrap imported was sub-standard and recover of metal was substantially low. The Revenue also ignored the fact that the allegation of clandestine removal has been leveled against the appellants by the department and the onus to substantiate the same by placing some concrete and tangible evidence lies on the department only and not on the appellants. I also find that recovery of aluminum metal from the aluminum scrap is not constant and depends on the quality 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