Back
RITU BAHRI, MANISHA BATRA
Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak – Appellant
Versus
SPL Ltd. (Now M/s. Somany Ceramics Ltd. ) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. brief description of respondent's excise registration and tax obligations (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. dispute on exemptions and cenvat credit compliance (Para 5 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. tribunal's decisions and legal precedents discussed (Para 6 , 9) |
| 4. court affirms respondent's entitlement to cenvat credit (Para 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT
Manisha Batra, J.
CM-6820-CII-2017
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 180 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
CM-6819-CII-2017
The application is allowed, as prayed for subject to just exceptions.
Main Case
The present appeal has been filed under Section 35-G of the CENTRAL EXCISE ACT , 1944 (for short 'the Act, 1944') against the order dated 12.08.2015 (Annexure A-3) passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter to be mentioned as 'the Tribunal') in Excise Appeal No.E/108/2007.
2. The brief matrix of the case is given hereunder:-
The court established that proper reversal of Cenvat credit negates the demand for additional payments under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and its amendment in 2007, particularly regarding the refund of C....
The court established that the assessee was eligible to avail CENVAT Credit on imported coal, and the relevant notifications and rules did not restrict the availment of such credit.
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
