Back
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
A.K. Jyotishi, Technical Member, Angad Prasad, Judicial Member
ITC – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Tax – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of demand for cenvat credit reversal on machinery for air separation plant. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. appellant's submission on eligibility under cenvat credit rules and non-applicability of limitations. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 3. tribunal reasoning on ownership, rule 4(3) interpretation, and retrospective scope of 2009 amendment. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 4. final order granting appeal with consequential relief. (Para 33 , 34) |
[ORDER PER: ANGAD PRASAD]
The present appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original No. 07/2013-CE-HYD-III-ADJN (COMMNR) dated 31.03.2013, whereby, Learned Commissioner disallowed CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs. 1,89,28,243/- availed by the appellant on Capital goods and inputs used for setting up an Air Separation Plant, and also confirmed interest under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and imposed equal penalty under Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules read with Section 11AC of the Act.
2. The fact, in brief, is that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of paper and pap
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
