Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Short Notes

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2019 (5) TMI 506

manufacture of exempted goods, therefore the credit is not admissible - Rule 6(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellant in their ER-1 return have been clearly declaring the claim of exemption Notification No. 29/2004-CE as well as 30/2004-CE at the same time they were availing the cenvat credit on the capital goods. It is also observed in the ER-1 return that though the appellant was showing the availment of cenvat credit but were not paying excise duty for the reason that the goods were cleared under exemption notification No. 30/04-CE, therefore, relevant fact that the appellant in one hand availing the exemption notification 30/04-CE and on other hand availing the cenvat credit on capita .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

empted goods other then the final products which are exempted from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon under any Notification where exemption is granted based upon the value or quantity or clearances made in a financial year. The appellant at the time of availment of cenvat credit on the capital goods manufacturing the textile goods which were exempted from payment of duty under Notification no. 30/04-CE dated 09.07.2004 therefore, the department s case is that the capital goods were used exclusively for manufacture of exempted goods, therefore the credit is not admissible. 2. Sh. K.I Vyas Ld. Counsel along with Shri Raj Vyas (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that they were manufacturing textiles articles .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ment of cenvat credit on capital goods in their monthly ER-1 return, therefore, there is no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant, hence the demand is clearly time barred. 3. Sh. L. Patra, Ld. Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He further submits that at the time of receipt of capital goods and availment of cenvat credit the goods manufactured by the appellant was cleared under Notification 30/04-CE the capital goods were used exclusively for manufacture of exempted final product hence, invoking Rule 6(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the cenvat credit is not admissible to the appellant. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judg .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||