TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>CESTAT AHMEDABAD: Appellants win appeal, denied modvat credit & penalties dismissed.</h1> <h3>M/s Jupiter Remedies Pvt. Ltd., M/s Advance Remedies Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi</h3> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD confirmed duty against the appellants, denied modvat credit, and set aside penalties under Section 11AC. The ... - Two Cenvat credit appeals by the assessee and one by Revenue arise from Commissioner (Appeals) orders denying modvat credit and confirming duty demands of Rs. 8,41,394 and Rs. 38,84,590 on the ground that the input supplier's final assessment showed a lower duty. Tribunal finds the supplier actually paid the higher duty and 'has not claimed refund,' and relies on precedents (including Hero Cycles Ltd. v. CCE; CCE Chennai v. CEGAT; CCE v. Jyoti Ltd.; Evergreen Engineering Co. v. CCE) establishing the principle that 'the credit cannot be varied at recipient's end on the ground that the supplier should have been paid lesser duty.' Accordingly denial of credit is unjustified. Separately, for the period April 2002-March 2005, the show cause notice dated 25.4.06 is beyond the limitation under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Citing authorities holding that setting aside duty under Section 11AC indicates extended period is not invocable where no mala fide exists, the Tribunal holds the demand is time-barred. Impugned order set aside; both assessee appeals allowed and Revenue's appeal rejected.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
