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>Tribunal sets aside order, allows appeals for fresh decision on duty demand, exemption, and Cenvat credit.</h1> <h3>M/s H.L. Passey Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE & ST, Bhopal</h3> The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed both appeals by way of remand. The decision aimed to address the duty demand issue on the complete ... Abatement claim - providing the fabricated Canopy at Petrol Pumps of various oil companies - bought out items as well as services renedered at site - Department is demanding duty on the complete Canopy including the bought out items and the rendered services at site - CENVAT Credit - HELD THAT:- It appears that the adjudicating authority has taken the conflicting views where it is stated in one para that accounts were maintained and another para that accounts were not maintained. When it is so, the impugned order is set aside in this regard and matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue de novo but after providing reasonable opportunity to the appellant, with the liberty to file fresh evidence, as per law. Appeals are allowed by way of remand. Issues:1. Duty demand on the complete Canopy including bought out items and rendered services at site.2. Exemption claimed after a specific date.3. Cenvat credit maintenance and liability.Analysis:1. The appellant, engaged in engineering activity, provides fabricated Canopy at Petrol Pumps. The department demanded duty on the complete Canopy, including bought out items and rendered services at site, offering 30% abatement. The appellant argued that duty was already paid on bought out items for the Canopy part, with no claim made for deduction. The Tribunal noted duty payment up to August 2014, with exemption claimed thereafter. As the reason for exemption post-September 2014 was unclear, the impugned order was set aside for a fresh decision by the original authority, ensuring a reasonable opportunity for the appellant.2. The second grievance concerned Cenvat credit. The adjudicating authority noted separate accounts maintained by the appellant for different activities, indicating awareness of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. However, conflicting views emerged regarding the maintenance of separate accounts, leading to the impugned order being set aside. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision, with the opportunity for the appellant to present new evidence, as per law.3. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing both appeals by way of remand. The decision aimed to address the duty demand issue on the complete Canopy, the exemption claimed after a specific date, and the concerns regarding Cenvat credit maintenance and liability. The remand provided an opportunity for a fresh decision, ensuring procedural fairness and compliance with legal requirements.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
