Tax Management India. Com
Subscription  |   New User  |   Login
Acts/ Rules Notifications Circulars Forms Tariff/ ITC HSN Case Laws Manuals Short Notes
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Panel Board & Laminates Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur

2017 (9) TMI 414 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Utilization of CENVAT credit suo moto - payment of disputed duty through PLA along with interest - Revenue was of the view that the appellants should have filed refund claim under Section 11B and should not have taken Cenvat Credit suo moto - Held that: - reliance placed in the case of The Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III Versus M/s CEAT Ltd. [2013 (7) TMI 568 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], where it was held that the debits were held to be of no consequence when the assessee was required to pay .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Counsel for the appellant pointed out that the appellant due to financial difficulties could not pay the duty in time and therefore, action under Rule 8 (3A) was initiated. The appellants were denied the benefit of utilization of Cenvat Credit. Consequently, the appellant paid the entire amount of duty through PLA along with interest. However, the same amount they had earlier paid through Cenvat, the appellant took re-credit thereof. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant taking suo-mo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

- 2013 (298) ELT 525 (Bom) c) Sopariwala Exports Pvt. Ltd. - 2017 (49) STR 195 (Tri-Ahmd) 3. Ld. AR reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. I have gone through the rival submissions. I find that the Revenue has relied on the decision of Larger Bench in the case of BDH Industries Ltd. - 2008 (229) ELT 364 (Tri-LB) wherein it has been held that the assesee cannot take suo moto credit on duty wrongly paid by him. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also relied on the said decision to deny suo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

otice demanding an amount of ₹ 6.83 crores from the respondent-assessee being the amount of suo motu credit of Additional Excise Duty (AED) after having paid the same to the Revenue as the credit on AED could not be utilised for payment of Basic duty of Excise but only be utilised for payment of AED. This was done by retrospective amendment in 2004. Therefore, the AED credit utilised was paid into the revenue through PLA and the original AED credit for payment of Basic Excise Duty was suo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

AED (GSI) credit accruing prior to 1-3-2003. In terms of the provisions enacted in Finance Act, 2004, the debits were held not amounting to payment of duty and the assessee was required to meet the same obligation by payment from PLA. In the instant case, the debits were held to be of no consequence when the assessee was required to pay duty initially discharged using AED (GSI) credit. Therefore, the credit needed to be restored and was correctly ordered so by the Commissioner. We find consider .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



Share:            

| Home | About us | Contact us | Disclaimer | Terms | Privacy |

©Taxmanagementindia.com
A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.
All rights reserved.

Go to Desktop Version