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 Agrawal Sponge Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE, Raipur

2017 (9) TMI 773 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

CENVAT credit - structural items - Held that: - the appellant could not produce any substantial evidence to support their claim that the goods were factually brought to their factory premises and used for manufacturing supporting structures of specified capital goods, their foundation. Consequently, the demand on account of ₹ 55,14,450/- along with interest and equivalent penalty confirmed by the impugned order is hereby sustained. - However, in the case of the remaining amount of Cenv .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r. Ashok K. Arya, Member (Technical) Ms. Rinky Arora, Advocate - for the appellant Shri M.R. Sharma, D.R. - for the respondent ORDER Per: Ashok K. Arya M/s Agrawal Sponge Pvt. Ltd. is in appeal against the Order-in-Original No.73/2009 dated 29.10.2009 whereunder inter alia the demand of Cenvat credit of ₹ 80,35,002/- along with interest and equivalent penalty against the appellant has been confirmed. 2. Both sides represented by Ms. Rinky Arora, ld. Advocate for the appellant and Shri M.R. .....

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 Department asked the assessee to furnish details of the credit availed for the period of April, 2004 to December, 2007. The assessee furnished such details of credit to the department. (iii) The Central Excise officers visited the assessee appellant on 17.7.2006 to conduct certain checks on the availment of Cenvat credit by the assessee. They found that neither invoices nor stock register was available in the factory premises; the records were maintained at the city office at Samta Colony, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

324/- and ₹ 1,08,126/-) had not been brought in the factory. (v) The assessee appellant reversed Cenvat credit of ₹ 55,14,450/- (Rs.54,06,324/- Basic Duty and ₹ 1,08,126/-). (vi) It is mentioned in the Show Cause Notice dated 26.3.2002 issued to the appellant that Director of the assessee Company, Shri R.D. Gupta gave the statement to the Supdt. recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 that the assessee reversed Cenvat credit of ₹ 55,14,536/- on 18.7.2006 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

duty 81,63,535/-, Education Cess of ₹ 1,53,111/- & Secondary and Higher Education Cess of ₹ 69 only) along with imposition of penalties. (ix) The Show Cause Notice was adjudicated by the impugned order Order-in-Original whereunder inter alia Cenvat credit totalling to ₹ 80,35,102/-(i.e. ₹ 78,81,922/-, education cess of ₹ 1,53,111/-, and SHE cess of ₹ 69/- only) along with interest and equivalent penalty was confirmed. (x) Therefore, the appellant is in ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gned items were used for the fabrication of various support Structurals of the specified capital goods, their foundation, forming parts thereof, and that the Oxygen gas was used for cutting of scrap mould scrap etc . 5.1 The appellant assessee has also given the defence that the extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, is not applicable in their case. But the impugned order has held that the assessee appellant suppressed the material facts from the dep .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appeal and written submissions mainly pleads as follows: (i) The assessee does not agree with the statement of Shri Rajput that input goods were not brought to the factory. (ii) The Cenvat credit on steel items is admissible to the appellant for the period prior to 7.7.2009. In support they cite the decisions in the case of M/s Singhal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur- 2016-TIOL-2451-CESTAT-DEL. and M/s Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur - 2016-TIOL-2875-CESTAT-DEL. (iii) In case of c .....

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