New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
CGST - Acts + GST Rates GST Ntf. GST Forms GST - Manual GST - FAQ State GST Acts SGST Ntf. I. Tax Manual
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Lakshmi Gayatri Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE & ST Hyderabad-III

Refund claim - unjust enrichment - denial on the ground that the amount deposited by them during the investigation is shown in their books of account as expenditure and not as receivable - Held that: - Undisputedly, the amount has been deposited during the investigation proceedings. It is in the nature of a pre-deposit. The appellant has deposited the amount of ₹ 3,38,749/- during investigation only with an intention of reducing the burden in case the litigation goes against him. There are .....

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 above appeal is filed against rejection of refund claim. 2. The appellants are manufacturers of sponge iron and are availing the facility of CENVAT credit on capital goods and inputs. A show cause notice dated 05.05.2008 was issued to the appellants alleging irregular credit availed by them to the tune of ₹ 29,69,276/- on boilers, water treatment plant and their parts installed solely for generation of steam which is exempted from duty and used for supply of steam to the neighbouring .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e credit of ₹ 3,38,749/- allowed in respect of water treatment plant which was not installed in their unit and not reflected in the books of account of appellant. The appellant filed cross objections in the said department appeal. While Order-in-Appeal dated 19.11.2009, the Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter with regard to demand of ₹ 3,38,749/- to the adjudicating authority. 3. Meanwhile, the appellant had filed refund claim for ₹ 3,38,749/- which was deposited by them .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of account as expenditure and not as receivable. That, therefore, the incidence of duty has been passed on and the refund claim is hit by unjust enrichment. The appellants are, thus, before the Tribunal. 5. As per the remand order, the adjudicating authority had passed denovo order dated 16.08.2010 in which it was held that the appellants are eligible for credit of ₹ 3,38,749/- in regard to water treatment plant. 6. On behalf of the appellant, Ld. Counsel Shri B.V. Kumar has filed detaile .....

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