Bombay High Court
Godfrey Philips India Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise ... on 4 September, 2018
Author: Riyaz I. Chagla
Bench: M.S.Sanklecha, Riyaz I. Chagla
cexa-148-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CENRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.148 OF 2017
Godfrey Philips India Ltd., .. Appellant.
v/s.
The Commissioner of Central Excise,
Mumbai-I .. Respondent.
Mr. Prakash Shah with Mr. Gajendra Jain and Mr. Jas Sanghavi i/b. PDS
Legal, for the Appellant.
Ms. P. S. Cardozo, for the Respondent.
CORAM: M.S.SANKLECHA &
RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATE : 4th SEPTEMBER, 2018.
P.C:-
Heard.
2 Appeal admitted on the following substantial questions of
law, which alone are pressed:-
"(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal, for the period 1.4.2011 to 31.12.2011, was justified in demanding amount euqal to 5% of the trading turnover (i.e. sales minus cost of goods sold or 10% of cost of goods sold, whichever is higher) under Rules 6(3)(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 instead of proportionate reversal under Rule 6(3)(ii) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004?
(b) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, for the period 1.4.2011 to 31.12.2011, the amount of proportionate reversal under Rules 6(3)(ii) would apply to entire input service credit as held by Appellate Tribunal or only common input service credit?
S.R.JOSHI 1 of 2
cexa-148-2017
(c) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in denying credit of service tax paid on input services covered by Rule 6(5)of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004?
(d) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, while calculating proportionate reversal under Rule 6(3)(ii) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the formula should be based on margin/ value addition in trading activity or sale value in trading activity, for the period prior to 1.4.2011?
(e) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in invoking extended period of limitation?
(f) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal is correct in upholding penalty on the Appellants?' Ms. Cardozo, learned Counsel waives service for the Respondent.
(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA,J.) (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.)
Digitally signed
Smita by Smita
Rajnikant Joshi
Rajnikant Date:
Joshi 2018.09.06
16:37:37 +0530
S.R.JOSHI 2 of 2