9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1080X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excise duty is excisable on sale of scrap generated in course of processing used and worn out tyres? - Held that: - the issue is no longer res-integra and the said Explanations have been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DSCL Vs. Union of India, [] wherein it has been held that waste and scrap generated in course of manufacture, although the same may be cleared for value or consideration, but the same are not exigible to Central Excise duty - demand set aside. CENVAT credit - capital goods - disallowance of Cenvat credit being 50% of the eligible credit, which was required to be taken in the subsequent year, but was taken in the 1st year itself - Held that: - the appellant has stated that the reason for taking of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edit on improper invoices for an amount of ₹ 89,854/-, I find that the same is in respect of five invoices for purchase of rubber processing oil, which is an input of the appellant. Further, the appellants have produced the evidences, which shows that the goods were received in the factory at Ghaziabad as is evident from the goods received note, and the weighment slips at Ghaziabad. Further, it is the admitted case of the Revenue that the appellants have got only one manufacturing unit and head office at Meerut. Under such facts and circumstances, it is held that the appellant is entitled to take Cenvat credit of ₹ 89,854/-. 5. So far as the duty demanded on removal of iron and brass scrap, which are generated in course of ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equired to be taken in the subsequent year, but was taken in the 1 st year itself. As per the SCN, the appellant during the course of investigation/audit, had reversed an amount of ₹ 74,863/- by way of depositing the duty vide e-payment challan dated 05.04.2012 along with interest of ₹ 11,347/- for the year, 2010 and ₹ 6886/- being interest for the year, 2011. The Id. Counsel for the appellant has stated that the reason for taking of credit before it was due, was due to over sight and no mala-fide was on the part of the appellant. The credit was anyway available after few months in the next financial year, Accordingly, only the liability for interest survives, no penalty is excisable on the appellant. Moreover, the revers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
