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>Court upholds extended duty payment period, remands Cenvat Credit issue for verification</h1> <h3>M/s Bhagyarekha Engineers Pvt Ltd., M/s Accurate Trans Heat Pvt Ltd., M/s Shridhar Engineering, M/s Sun Textile Engineers And M/s Texfab Engineers (i) Pvt Ltd. Versus Commissioners of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-Surat-I</h3> The court upheld the application of the extended period for duty payment, finding that the applicants had not taken necessary steps to avoid it. However, ... Rectification of mistake - Intention to evade payment of duty - Held that:- There is no error apparent from the case records so far as application of the extended period is concerned. Therefore, ROMs filed by the applicants to this extent are not sustainable - benefits of Cenvat Credit is admissible to them it is observed that this ground was taken up by the applicants in the Grounds of appeal and no orders were passed by this Bench. There is, thus, a mistake apparent from the face of the records and needs rectification. In these proceedings where exemption is denied to the applicant the Cenvat Credit on inputs/capital goods received during the relevant period is admissible. However, the same is subject to the verification of credit taking documents by the Adjudicating Authority that the conditions specified in the Cenvat Credit Rules are fulfilled. For this verification and quantification of duty liability, the matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating authority. The applicants should produce the required duty paying documents to the Adjudicating authority in order to claim the Cenvat Credit during the relevant period. - Rectification done. Issues:1. Application of extended period for duty payment2. Admissibility of Cenvat CreditAnalysis:1. Application of Extended Period for Duty Payment:The applicants filed ROM applications challenging Order No. A/11506-11515/2014 dated 21.8.2014, arguing that the extended period should not apply as they did not intend to evade duty payment and had relied on various judgments and evidence during the proceedings. The Bench noted that the extended period was rightly invoked as washing machines were cleared as drying machines without proper declarations or seeking clarification from the Revenue, justifying the application of the extended period. The ROMs filed by the applicants on this ground were deemed unsustainable as no error was found in the application of the extended period.2. Admissibility of Cenvat Credit:The applicants contended that even if the benefit of exemption notification was not applicable to them, they should still be eligible for Cenvat Credit. The Bench acknowledged this argument and observed that the issue of Cenvat Credit was not addressed in the previous order dated 21.8.2014. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority for verification and quantification of duty liability regarding the admissibility of Cenvat Credit on inputs and capital goods received during the relevant period. The applicants were instructed to provide the necessary duty paying documents for claiming Cenvat Credit, and the Adjudicating Authority was directed to conduct de-novo proceedings, allowing the applicants a personal hearing. The Adjudicating Authority was tasked with quantifying duty liability, as well as determining penalties and interest accordingly. The ROM applications were allowed only to the extent indicated above, addressing the issue of Cenvat Credit admissibility.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
