Back
RITU BAHRI, KULDEEP TIWARI
Principal Commissioner Of Central Excise, Central Excise Commossionerate – Appellant
Versus
Mitsubish Electric Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of facts regarding cenvat credit (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on cenvat credit eligibility (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis of cenvat rules and applicable law (Para 6 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. denial of substantial questions of law (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT
Kuldeep Tiwari, J.
The present appeal, filed by the Revenue, has been directed against the judgment dated 5.9.2014 (Annexure A/3) passed by the learned Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, whereby, the appeal filed by the respondent, against the order dated 31.3.2006 (Annexure A/2), passed by the Commissioner Central Excise, Delhi-III, Gurgaon, had been allowed.
2. The respondent-company is engaged in the production and clearance of Electric Control unit, Alternator Assy. etc. classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Hearing No. 9032.99/8511 of the 1st Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) and is also availing Modvat/CENVAT credit of duty paid on inputs and capital goods under Rule 3 of CENVAT CREDIT RULES , 2002/2004. During the course of audit of the respondent's records, for the period from September, 2003 to March, 2005, the staff of Central Excise Audit obser
Eligibility to avail CENVAT credit retained despite omission of Rule 12B; addendum to SCN not sustainable after time limit.
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
