Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (12) TMI 550

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... red on this CENVAT credit which was reversed. Demand of reversal of 6% on containers used for packing inputs on which credit has been availed - HELD THAT:- Even if the amendment in Rule 6(1) w.e.f. 01/03/2015 wherein Explanation has been added to Rule 6(1), it is clear that Rule 6(1) would apply only when inputs or input services are used in relation to the manufacture of exempted goods - Further, it is an admitted fact that MS drums have not been manufactured by the appellant and therefore Rule 6(1) is not applicable even after the insertion of Explanation w.e.f. 01/03/2015. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Central Excise Appeal No. 20678 of 2019 - Final Order No. 21213/2019 - Dated:- 13-12-2019 - MR. S.S GA .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rvice tax of ₹ 57,077/- along with interest and imposed penalty of ₹ 1,32,778/- and ₹ 15,505/- under Rule 15(2) and penalty of ₹ 57,077/- under Section 78 of the Act. Further, credit reverse of ₹ 15,505/- and tax paid of ₹ 57,077/- was appropriated against the demand and interest paid of ₹ 16,805/- was appropriated against the demand of interest. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who rejected the appeal. Hence the present appeal. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly apprecia .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... include non-excisable goods For the Purpose of this Rule and does not amend either 2(d) or 2(h). He further submitted that as per Rule 2(t), words and expressions used in the CCR but not defined shall have the meaning in Central Excise Act, 1944 or the Finance Act, 1994. Non-excisable goods has not been defined in the Rules or in the Central Excise Act, 1944. However Section 2(d) of Central Excise Act, 1944 defines excisable goods means goods specified in the First Schedule or Second Schedule to the CETA, 1985 as being subject to duty of excise. Tanks, casks, drums, cans, boxes and similar containers of iron or steel of a capacity not exceeding 300 ltr are specified under Heading 7310 (capacity exceeding 300 ltr classified under 7309) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Explanation w.e.f. 01/03/2015 does not alter the legal position viz-a-viz the packing material in which inputs were received and the clarification of CBEC vide circular dt. 06/06/2003 and the case laws on the subject including the Apex Court decision in the case of CCE Vs. West Coast Industrial Gases Ltd. [2003(155) ELT 11 (SC)] would apply in full force against the present demand. 3.3. Learned counsel also submitted that it has been wrongly held by the lower authorities that the appellants are liable to pay 6% on the value of exempted goods. The option to pay 6% or reverse proportionate credit in the manner provided under rule 6(3A) is provided under Rule 6(3) of the CCR but the said option was not given to the appellant. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of the material on record, I find that with regard to the issue of irregular cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 15,505/- availed on the basis of invoices beyond one year, the appellant has reversed the said credit before issuance of show-cause notice with penalty of 15%. Therefore there is no justification for imposing penalty and more over, the appellant had sufficient CENVAT credit in their account during the relevant period. Similarly the CENVAT credit on GTA was reversed by the appellant along with interest and also 15% penalty which is sufficient and therefore no penalty is required on this CENVAT cred .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates