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 →

M/s Executive Engineer (Workshop Div.) Versus C.C.E., Bhopal

2017 (4) TMI 985 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Refund claim - amount paid under protest - The reason for rejection of such refund in the impugned order is that the appellant would not be eligible for taking the credit on inputs; once, it has been held that the final products are not liable to payment of Excise duty - Held that: - It is settled law that there is no prohibition under CEA, 1944 or the rules made there-under for cash refund of duty paid by utilization of Modvat/Cenvat credit. Section 11B of the CEA does not make any distinction .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal no.162/2011 dated 28.7.2011. The appellant is a Government of Madhya Pradesh undertaking and are engaged in the production and distribution of electricity. The appellant also undertakes the work of erection of towers for drawing transmission lines. For this purpose, they carried out the activities such as cutting, drilling, punching, bending, welding, assembling and painting etc on duty paid iron and steel products such as angles, channels and pla .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Order No.A/379/03-NB-C, dated 16.07.2003. Consequent upon the decision of the Tribunal, the appellant received a refund of ₹ 35,25,514/- in cash. The present dispute is with reference to the refund claim of ₹ 63,30,263/- paid by utilization of Cenvat credit. The refund claim for the above amount was rejected by both the authorities below for the reason that the said amount has been paid by making use of the modvat credit, which was accumulated when the activity undertaken by the app .....

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 credit taken is in order. Therefore, the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) is without basis. ii. Since, the activity undertaken by the appellant has been held to be not amounting to manufacture, the duty paid is required to be refunded. The appellant is not undertaking any activity at the moment requiring the payment of Excise duty. Consequently, no useful purpose will be served by re-crediting the refund to the modvat account. Hence, they prayed that the refund may be allowed in cash. .....

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