Feedback   New User   Subscription   Demo   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 →

Vithal Corporation Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III

2018 (2) TMI 888 - CESTAT MUMBAI

CENVAT credit - molasses - rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 - Held that: - the appellant had failed to discharge its obligation to establish that the amounts debited in the CENVAT credit account had not been passed on to the buyer. On the bar of unjust enrichment operating against that claim. - The appellant had submitted evidence in the form of certificate of Chartered Accountant for not having passed on the burden of payment discharged under rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. Moreove .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dated 21st November 2014 of Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals) Pune rejecting the refund claim of ₹ 11,46,852 and ₹ 3,95,154 by sanctioning an amount of ₹ 13,12,107 which was, however, transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund as envisaged in section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The genesis of this dispute lies in the demand served on the appellant, a manufacturer of sugar and molasses for discharge of obligation to pay 5% of the value of bagasse and other materials e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in the process of manufacture and, hence, not governed by the stipulations pertaining to exempt manufacture. Accordingly, the refund application for the majors amounts involved in the dispute was filed by the appellant. The original authority, however, decided that levy of the said amount could not be faulted and rejected the refund claim. 3. The first appellate authority did not concur with the competence of the authorities below the Tribunal to revisit the obligation to pay the prescribed amou .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

arisen for claiming that refund. Learned Counsel for the appellant admitted to the facts as found by the first appellate authority on these two. There is no doubt that the appellant is entitled to the claim of refund only upon consequence of a decision in these two disputes. Accordingly, the refund claim for ₹ 11,46,852 and ₹ 3,95,154 have been rightly rejected in the impugned order. 5. On the first of the claims, he held that the appellant had failed to discharge its obligation to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

td v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat [2007 (210) ELT 615 (Tri-Mumbai)], Asha Nitrochem Industries Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Daman [2013 (289) ELT 360 (Tri-Ahmd)] and Vimal Microns Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-II [2009 (240) ELT 269 (Tri-Ahmd)]. 6. It is also submitted by the Learned Counsel that the appellant had furnished a certificate from the Chartered Accountant that the said amount had not been included in the consideration collected from the purchase .....

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