Back
G. S. KULKARNI, JITENDRA JAIN
Principal Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise – Appellant
Versus
Larsen & Toubro Limited (HED), Powai – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G. S. Kulkarni, J.
1. This appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act,1944 (for short “CE Act”) arises from an order dated 28 August 2019 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, Regional Bench (for short “CESTAT”), whereby the respondent’s appeal being Excise Appeal No.525 of 2012 arising out of the order-in-original dated 31January 2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II, has been allowed.
2. The appellant / revenue in assailing the judgment of the CESTAT has although raised four questions of law, as fairly agreed by the parties, we confine the adjudication of the present appeal on the following substantial question of law:-
3. The controversy in the present appeal revolves around the purport and applicability of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (for short ‘CCR, 2004’) under which the duty demand was raised a
The Cenvat Credit Rules permit reversal of credit only for inputs used in exempt products, clarifying that services related to dutiable products remain eligible for credit.
The court established that proper reversal of Cenvat credit negates the demand for additional payments under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules.
Rule 6(3A) CENVAT reversal limited to common credit; excludes exclusive dutiable credit; no extended period or penalty for interpretational disputes.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
