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>Rectification application for denied CENVAT credit dismissed on pecuniary jurisdiction grounds.</h1> <h3>JSW Steel (Salav) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad</h3> The Tribunal dismissed the application seeking rectification of a final order that denied CENVAT credit on gardening, courier, and security services. The ... Rectification of mistake - Tribunal has dismissed the appeal on pecuniary jurisdiction - Held that: - at the admission stage appellant was represented by Jr. Manager (Excise & Customs) and he did not indicate to the bench that the issue is of recurring nature - The bench has exercised its discretion for non-maintaining the appeal as per the provisions of Section 35B(l)of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - there is no error apparent on the face of the records - ROM application dismissed. Issues: Rectification of mistake in final order regarding denial of CENVAT credit on gardening, courier, and security services.In this case, the applicant filed an application seeking rectification of mistake in the final order dated 14/08/2017, where the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on pecuniary jurisdiction. The applicant's counsel argued that lower authorities denied CENVAT credit on services like gardening, courier, and security, citing them as not related to the manufacturing process. The counsel pointed out a previous judgment where CENVAT credit for gardening services was deemed eligible. However, the Tribunal's order did not consider this precedent, leading to an alleged error on the face of the records. The applicant requested the recall of the final order for a fresh hearing.Upon reviewing the submissions and records, it was noted that the final order was passed by the bench at the admission stage. The amount involved in the appeal was 40,527/-. The appellant, represented by a Jr. Manager, did not indicate to the bench that the issue was of a recurring nature. The bench, under the discretion granted by Section 35B(l) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, decided not to maintain the appeal. The Tribunal found no error apparent on the face of the records and dismissed the application accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
