Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful)

TaxTMI AI Drafter workflow from input facts to final legal draft Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.

Try Now
×

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 / RSS

2017 (12) TMI 380

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appellants are engaged in the manufacture of HDPE/PP Tapes, webbings, yarn, PP Woven Fabric, FIBC Bags, etc. falling under Chapter Heading 3926 and 6405 of the CETA. The appellant is availing Cenvat credits on inputs viz. HDPE/LDPE granules etc. The appellant are also getting FIBC Bags manufacture on Job Work basis at their Unit II situated at No.37/1 Naddakarappa Industrial Estate, Vishwaneedam Post, Bangalore 560091. During audit, it was observed that the appellant had sent intermediate excisable goods manufactured by them to their Unit II Job Worker under Job Work Challans for manufacture of Finished Products FIBC Bags. It was noticed that the intermediate goods sent to Job Worker were not returned even after stipulated period of 180 day....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appeal of the appellant. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 6. The Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable considering the provisions of the Act and also the impugned order is contrary to the binding judicial precedent on the same issue. He further submitted that the appellant manufactured intermediate goods and sent the same for job work to their Unit which was destroyed in the fire accident and therefore there is no possibility for the return of the goods delivered. He further submitted that the appellant cannot be expected to bring back the destroyed goods to save the credit validly taken by them. He also submitted that the law does not r....