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 →

Big Bags International Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner Of Central Tax

2017 (12) TMI 380 - CESTAT BANGALORE

CENVAT credit - job-work - Remission of duty - goods destroyed by fire - the intermediate goods sent to Job Worker were not returned even after stipulated period of 180 days in terms of Rule 4 (5)(a) of the CCR, and subsequently got destroyed by fire - Held that: - reliance placed in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI-IV Versus FENNER INDIA LTD. [2014 (11) TMI 704 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that when the inputs are destroyed in the fire accident, the assesse cannot .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has upheld the order-in-original and rejected the appeal of the appellant. E/21409/2017-SM 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of HDPE/PP Tapes, webbings, yarn, PP Woven Fabric, FIBC Bags, etc. falling under Chapter Heading 3926 and 6405 of the CETA. The appellant is availing Cenvat credits on inputs viz. HDPE/LDPE granules etc. The appellant are also getting FIBC Bags manufacture .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Rules (CCR) which prescribes that in case the raw material or partially processed goods are not returned from job worker within 180 days, the manufacturer shall pay an amount equivalent to the Cenvat Credit attributable to the inputs through debiting Cenvat Credit or in cash. 2.1 Subsequently, instead of paying the amount equivalent to the Cenvat credit attributable to the inputs, the appellant filed a claim for remission of duty on account of two fire accidents which occurred on 17.07.2011 and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

,25,347/- under Rule 14 CCR along with interest and equivalent penalty under section 11AC of CE Act and E/21409/2017-SM Rule 15(2) of CCR. 3. After following the due process of law, the original authority vide its order-in-original dated 10.04.2014 confirmed the demand of ₹ 13,25,347/- along with interest and equivalent penalty invoking the extended period. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner who also rejected 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

or the return of the goods delivered. He further submitted that the appellant cannot be expected to bring back the destroyed goods to save the credit validly taken by them. He also submitted that the law does not require doing the impossible. He further submitted that once the inputs were issued for manufacture of fabric, the condition for treating the subject goods as inputs has been satisfied and in this case after issue of inputs, even intermediate product i.e. fabric have emerged. Therefore, .....

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