Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd Versus CCE Kolhapur

2017 (12) TMI 378 - CESTAT MUMBAI

CENVAT credit - part of intermediate goods cleared outside (on payment of duty) - case of Revenue is that duty paid by the assessee on the intermediate by product is not their input therefore they were not entitle for the cenvat credit - Held that: - The appellant have undisputedly paid the excise duty while clearing the said by product on which credit was availed. Once the excise duty paid on the removal of the said by product credit availed thereon cannot be disputed - As regard the payment 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

the Respondent ORDER The fact of the case is that assessee are engaged in the manufacture of Soaps, Detergent, Distilled Fatty Acid and Soap Noodles etc. and availed facility of Cenvat on the duty paid on input and capital goods used in or in relation to the manufacture of their final product. During the course of manufacture of final product some intermediate byproduct are emerged namely, CPS-DFA, CPS-Low Volatire, CPS-Pitch Oil and CPS-Glycerin and out of all these product only CPS-DFA is furt .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

envat credit is available on such intermediate goods. The demand of Cenvat credit was confirmed by the Adjudicating authority and the same was upheld by the Commissioner(Appeals) partly and part demand was dropped on the ground of time bar. The demand which was confirmed on merit for the normal period, Assessee, M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd filed the appeal. Revenue also filed appeal for the portion of the demand dropped on time bar. 2. Ms. Aparna Hirandagi, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing the duty on removal of such intermediate goods. She further submits that Revenue has not objected on the duty paid on intermediate goods as Central excise duty therefore credit of the said duty is not deniable. She placed reliance on the following judgments: (a) Ashok Enterprises Versus Commissioner Of Central Excise, Chennai[2008 (221) E.L.T. 586 (Tri. - Chennai)] (b) Super Forgings And Steels Ltd. Versus Commissioner of C. Ex., Chennai2007 (217) E.L.T. 559 (Tri. - Chennai) (c) S.A.I.L. Ban .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ntral Ex. & Cus., Surat-III Versus Creative Enterprises[2009 (235) E.L.T. 785 (Guj.)] upheld by Honble Supreme Court[2009(243)ELT A-120(SC)] She further submits that there is no gain for the assessee in following modus operandi of payment of duty on intermediate byproduct, availing cenvat credit and again payment of duty on the same while clearing the goods to the other unit of M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd, for the reason that there was a agreement with M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd according t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt left to be paid hence the demand raised by the department is illegal. As regard the Revenue s appeal, she submits that firstly on merit itself the demand is not sustainable. Accordingly, Revenue s appeal which is only on the issue of time bar will not survive. She alternatively submits that in the first round of appeal before the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) he has dropped the demand for extended period in the remand order therefore adjudicating authority should not have decided the portion of t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, 11-01-2007, 22-2-2007 and dated 18-8-2007 well within the normal period of one year therefore Commissioner s observation in the first remand order was not correct, therefore demand could not have been dropped on time bar. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 5. I find that the Cenvat credit was denied by the Revenue only on the ground that duty paid by the assessee on the intermediate by product is not their input therefore they were not en .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

said by product within their factory for captive consumption, credit on such goods is not deniable. As regard the by product which were removed from the factory to their other factory of M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd they have paid excise duty which is either equal or more than the Cenvat credit availed. The intermediate by product was treated as input and excise duty was paid on that, accordingly Cenvat credit is admissible. If it is retained in the factory either it should be used captively in t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| 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