Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (11) TMI 1338

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sides agree that the issues require re-consideration - for the period from April, 2008 to December, 2010, the plea of the appellant was rejected by the Ld. Commissioner on the ground that they have not followed the laid down procedure under Rule 3(A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Here also from the Superintendent's report, whatever amount reversed for the relevant period by the appellant had been accepted and no objection was raised - this also needs scrutiny/examination by the Commissioner - it is a fit case to be remitted to the Commissioner to reconsider all the issues afresh in the light of the report of the range Superintendent referred to in the order – Appeal allowed by way of remand - Decided in favour of Assessee. - Ex.Ap.13 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tems except on furnace oil (for the period after 2007). 3. Ld. Advocate further submitted that as per Section 72/73 of Finance Act, 2010, the Applicant had submitted an application before the Ld. Commissioner informing the amount of proportionate credit involved on various inputs, including furnace oil, and reversal of the same along with interest duly supported by a Chartered Accountant's certificate. The said application was filed on 04.11.2010. Due to discrepancy in the said certificate, the applicant had filed another certificate on 23.06.2011. The grievance of the Applicant is that the Ld. Commissioner has not accepted the said certificates and rejected their contention of reversal of proportionate credit for the period from May, 200 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... edit attributable to the inputs that had gone into the manufacture of finished product, which are exempted, they have reversed a total credit of Rs. 79,92,091.32 and interest of Rs. 16,42,143.51 for the entire period May, 2002 to December, 2010. The Ld. Sr. Advocate further submitted that even though the adjudicating authority had mentioned the report of the Range Superintendent, in the impugned order at para 7.26, but the same was not handed over to them, consequently, they collected it by filing an application under RTI Act. He has further submitted that the said report was obtained subsequent to filing of the Appeal before this Tribunal and accordingly the said report was filed with the Tribunal on 28.03.2012. The Ld. Sr. Advocate also s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... this stage. Taking into consideration that the applicant had already deposited an amount of Rs. 77.93 Lakhs and interest of Rs. 16.42 Lakhs and the said amount being sufficient to hear the Appeal, consequently, the Appeal is taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides. 6. We find the limited issue involved in the present case relates to quantum of CENVAT Credit reversed by the appellant proportionately on the inputs that had gone into the manufacture of exempted products, namely, 'Maaza' manufactured along with other dutiable products. It is the claim of the appellant that since May, 2002 they have been reversing proportionate credit on various inputs that had been used in the manufacture of exempted products namely Maaza. I is n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e find that even though the Ld. Commissioner has referred to the said report of the Superintendent in the order, but the same had not been discussed. It is the claim of the appellant that the range Superintendent after due verification of quantity of common inputs used in the manufacture exempted goods, namely, Maaza, has reported that no amount is due after reversal of the proportionate credit by the appellant adopting the formula by them for the entire period from May, 2002 to March, 2008. We find that the Ld. Commissioner has rejected the Chartered Accountant's certificate being not supported by evidence, whereas in the Superintendent's report the amount reversed by the appellant has been accepted and in the remarks column only an amount .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates