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 (3) TMI 1788

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... disputedly levied in the case of the respondent. Thus, even on merits, the appeal of the revenue is not sustainable. CENVAT Credit taken on the basis of photocopies - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal has held in number of cases that the credit on photocopies cannot be denied, unless it is proved that they are not genuine. We further find that the Assistant Commissioner in the order-in-original has observed that the respondent had supplied some original copies - the respondent had been repeatedly taking services of a limited number of service providers and in case of any doubt, the Revenue was at liberty to verify the genuineness of the credit taken on the basis of the photocopies. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Excise Appea .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 852/- and ₹ 18,64,184/- of unutilized Cenvat credit of service tax availed on input services claimed to have been used during the period October 2014 to December 2014, January 2015 to March 2015, April 2015 to June 2015 and July 2015 to August 2015 in the manufacture of goods. The claims were rejected by the Assistant Commissioner vide four separate orders-in-original all dated 7 October 2016 on the ground that the refunds were not admissible as that goods exported and cleared in DTA carried NIL rate of tariff duty. Accordingly, they were not entitled to take credit under Rule 6 read with rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. It was stated that duty was paid by the respondent under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as applicabl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s dated 11 July 2018 for filing appeal before the High Court. In the present appeal, the learned Departmental Representative has argued that the respondent was not entitled to Cenvat credit on the ground that the goods were chargeable to nil rate of duty under the Central Excise Tariff, and fell in the category of exempted goods in terms of Rule 2(d) of the Cenvat Credit Rules and accordingly, no Cenvat credit input services used in or in relation to these exempted goods was admissible as per Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. It was further argued that the duty paid by the respondent under Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 2002 at the time of clearance to DTA was in lieu of customs duty which they were required to pay as 100% EOU, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to the respondent. There is no substance in the argument of Departmental Representative that the Tribunal order dated 28 September 2017 was not appealed against due to revised monetary limits. The Tribunal order is dated 28 September 2017 and revised instructions are dated 11 July 2018. Therefore, the appeal period for filing an appeal to High Court had already expired by the time revised instructions on monetary limit were issued. 6. Even on merits, the arguments of the Revenue are not acceptable. The duty paid by EOU under Section 3 (1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 is unequivocally the duty of excise even though the quantum of the same is measured in customs duty. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise Customs versus Sur .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ade part-payment of duty on the inputs (imported duty-free under Notification No. 52/2003-Cus.) cleared as such‟ to the DTA unit. It is not deniable that such DTA clearances were made on payment of duty of excise which was calculated in terms of the proviso to Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act. There is no dispute regarding the amount of duty so paid. According to the appellant, it was customs duty which was paid by the respondent on the DTA clearances. The show-cause notices were issued on this premise. It is settled law that what is paid by a 100% EOU on DTA clearances is duty of excise (for the period of dispute in this case) which is calculated as aggregate of duties of customs which would have been leviable if the same good .....

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