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 →

Jeans Knit Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax And Customs, Bangalore

2017 (11) TMI 770 - CESTAT BANGALORE

100% EOU - refund of unutilized CENVAT credit - Held that: - the certificate issued by the CA as well as the CENVAT credit register clearly shows that the figure shown in the ER returns is wrong and the appellant has filed the refund claim of ₹ 33,79,759/- and he has already reversed the credit of ₹ 34,43,095/- the appellant has given proper explanation of this discrepancy - the impugned order is not sustainable in law and the same is set aside by allowing the appeal of the appellant .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ant is a 100% EOU and engaged in the manufacture and exports of readymade garments falling under Chapter 61, 62 and 65 of CETA, 1985 and is registered with Central Excise. They had earlier availed CENVAT credit of duty paid on various input services and had applied for the refunds of accumulated, unutilized CENVAT credit on various input services under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules and Notifications No.5/2006-CE (NT) and No.27/2012-CE (NT) for the period July 2014 to September 2014. Since 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

le credit. Remaining amount of ₹ 11,40,568/- was rejected on account of the fact that as per ER-2 return, the CENVAT credit availed during the quarter was found to be ₹ 22,81,894/- whereas the assessee had claimed the refund of ₹ 33,79,759/-. The lower authority had taken the ineligible credit on inputs and input services to be ₹ 22,81,894/- on the basis of ER-2 return and had applied the same to the formula as per Rule 5 read with Notification No.27/2012-CE NT dated 18.6 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

amount of CENVAT credit availed as per refund application filed by the appellant and the credit availed as disclosed in the ER-2 returns. He further submitted that both the authorities have not bothered to appreciate the critical aspect that the appellant had maintained CENVAT credit account in terms of Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 and as per the records maintained by the appellant, the total CENVAT credit availed during the period was ₹ 34,43,096/- though the appellant had state .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

total credit of ₹ 34,43,095/- while claiming refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR) and this fact has been stated by the applicant in their letter dated 3.2.2015. He further submitted that once the appellant has reversed credit of ₹ 34,43,095/- then he is entitled to get the refund of the same amount and in order to prove his case the appellant has also produced the CA certificate as well as the CENVAT credit account register which shows that he has reversed a sum of .....

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