Condonation of refiling delay refused where repeated defects, lack of diligence and vague explanations defeated the appeal against resolution plan app...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
4401 to 4420 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Recovery of CENVAT Credit - The finding/the reason quoted is apparently wrong as appellant has been an importer and not the manufacturer. Question of any amount of excise duty does not at all arise to ever be the liability of the appellant. Further the silence of any reference to the availment of credit in Section 28B of Customs Act or Section 11D of Central Excise Act is also observed to be an erroneous finding for the reason that irrespective both the sections are silent about the availment of credit but the simultaneous provisions in Rule 3 and Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules entitle the appellant to avail the said credit. Admittedly the same has not been availed. Hence, the collection of amount of said duty from the customers was justified. - AT
Recovery of CENVAT Credit - The finding/the reason quoted is apparently wrong as appellant has been an importer and not the manufacturer. Question of any amount of excise duty does not at all arise to ever be the liability of the appellant. Further the silence of any reference to the availment of credit in Section 28B of Customs Act or Section 11D of Central Excise Act is also observed to be an erroneous finding for the reason that irrespective both the sections are silent about the availment of credit but the simultaneous provisions in Rule 3 and Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules entitle the appellant to avail the said credit. Admittedly the same has not been availed. Hence, the collection of amount of said duty from the customers was justified. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
