Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2010 (6) TMI 437

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s after getting central excise registration in their. With the taking over of the unit, the credit of duty of Rs. 3,67,368/- as basic excise and of Rs. 4,757/- as education cess available with M/s. GTCL was also transferred to their accounts by the appellant. 2.On account of an audit objection raised by the Central Excise Audit, a show cause notice dated 23-6-08 was issued to the appellant proposing recovery of the Cenvat credit wrongly availed and imposition of penalty and recovery of interest etc. The said show cause notice was adjudicated confirming demand of duty of Rs. 3,81,581/- along with interest and imposing penalty of identical amount. An amount of Rs. 9,456/- was confirmed as wrongly availed credit on waste and scrap, on the g....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... has been brought to my notice that at the time of surrendering registration certificate M/s. GTCL undertook to discharge all central excise dues against M/s. GTCL. The appellant is also ready to give an undertaking that any dues which may arise against M/s. GTCL in future, they are read to discharge the liability of the same. Learned advocate has also drawn my attention to the Tribunal's order in the case of Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Visakhapatnam v. Nagarjuna Agrichem Ltd. reported in 2008 (222) E.L.T. 232 (Tri. - Bang.) as also to another order of the Tribunal in the case of Henkel India Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai reported in 2009 (248) E.L.T. 816 (Tri.-Chennai) = 2009 (92) RLT 467 (CESTAT-Che .) laying down that credit is not ....