Whether appellant can take suo moto credit of excess duty ...

Central Excise

March 14, 2014

Whether appellant can take suo moto credit of excess duty debited for second time payment of duty or they were required to claim in respect of the excess amount debited towards the payment of duty twice over - demand set aside - AT

View Source

← Previous Next →

Whether appellant can take suo moto credit of excess duty ...

Central Excise

March 14, 2014

You may also like:

Suo moto credit versus filing of refund claim - suo moto credit can be taken if duty is paid twice as excess duty paid is not a duty and same is deposit - AT

Admissibility of suo-moto re-credit which was debited by them earlier under protest - there is no impediment in the appellant taking suo motto credit - AT

Refund clam - payment of duty twice - once from the cenvat account and subsequently by cash through PLA - re-credit taken suo moto instead of claiming refund - claim...

Admissibility Suo-moto credit – suo-moto admissible Cenvat credit taken, after getting a favourable decision from the first appellate authority, is correct. - AT

The duty payable is only the amount which was mentioned in the invoice. It is only due to computer system the huge amount of excess as compared to the actual duty...

Suo moto adjustment of excess service tax paid - excess payment is not in dispute and same has been adjusted for the future liability of Service Tax by the appellant - AT

Suo moto availing of credit - there was nothing wrong in taking of suo motu credit after getting favourable orders from CESTAT, when unjust enrichment is not applicable - AT

Availment of suo moto credit - Payment by making cash payment in PLA under reverse charge - early ST was paid using cenvat credit - credit allowed - AT

Claim of refund or suo-moto re-credit - Reversal of excess Cenvat credit wrongly - appellant is entitled to take refund/re-credit of the excess amount Cenvat credit...

Suo moto credit taken on excess credit debited by appellant - the allegation by the department is erroneous for the reason that for the second time, the appellants have...

Quick Updates: