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 →

Rama Hipower Tech Versus Commissioner Of Central Tax, Bangalore North West Commissionerate

2018 (2) TMI 912 - CESTAT, BANGALORE

CENVAT credit - manufacture of dutiable and exempted finished goods - non-maintenance of separate records - Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 - Held that: - the Slag which is a waste product arises during the manufacturing of MS Billets and the same is also exempted by virtue of N/N. 12/2012 dated 17.03.2012 - Slag is a waste product and is not excisable. - The provisions of Rule 6(2) and Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are not applicable to this case as the Slag emerges as i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

missioner has allowed the appeal of the Department and set aside the Order-in-Original. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of MS Billets falling under CSH 72071920 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the course of audit of the records of the assessee for the period 2012-13, it was observed that during the process of manufacture of MS Billets by the appellant, the product Slag arises which is classifiable under CSH 26190010 leviable to ex .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ee proposing to demand and recover an amount of ₹ 3,29,708/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Eight only) being the amount payable under Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for the period April 2012 to November 2013 under proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act along with interest under Section 11AA ibid. Penalty was also proposed under Section 11AC ibid. The show-cause notice also proposed confiscation of goods under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rule .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly considering the facts of the case and the decisions rendered by various Tribunals and the High Court on the same issue. He further submitted that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the appellant has not been given the opportunity of personal hearing and hence the Order-in-Appeal is liable to be set aside. He further submitted .....

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