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>Appellate Tribunal Upholds CENVAT Credit Reversal Decision</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Versus M/s HENKEL SWITCHGEAR LTD</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Versus M/s HENKEL SWITCHGEAR LTD - TMI Issues:1. Reversal of CENVAT credit availed on inputs written off in the Books of Accounts.2. Denial of credit on inputs written off as obsolete.3. Closure of factory affecting the availability of inputs for manufacturing final products.Analysis:1. The case involved a dispute regarding the reversal of CENVAT credit availed on inputs written off in the Books of Accounts. The Revenue appealed against the order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) which set aside the adjudication order. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) held that since the inputs were still available in the factory of the respondent, there was no liability to reverse the credit availed on such inputs, even though they were written off during a specific period.2. The Revenue contended that the inputs had become obsolete and could not be used in the manufacturing process of the final product. Therefore, they argued that the credit should not be allowed on inputs that were written off as obsolete. Additionally, due to the closure of the factory, the inputs could no longer be utilized for manufacturing final products, leading to the assertion that the credit availed on such inputs needed to be reversed.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the decision in the case of Kinetic Motors Co. Ltd. to support the conclusion that if inputs were still present in the factory premises, the credit availed on those inputs did not need to be reversed, even if they were previously written off in the books. The Appellate Tribunal, upholding the decision of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), stated that in the absence of any contrary decision presented by the Revenue, there was no justification to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the arguments presented by the parties, and the rationale behind the decision rendered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
