Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.28 seconds)

M/S Mohit Industries Ltd vs Union Of India on 21 February, 2023

5.12. The utilization of lapsed credit is a double loss to the Page 16 of 34 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 22 20:52:40 IST 2023 C/SCA/9678/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2023 exchequer to the extent that the unit had not paid the Central Excise Duty on their finished goods by opting for the benefits under the Notification No.30/2004, but carried forward duty paid on inputs which, in turn, is consumed for manufacturing exempted goods in terms of Notification No.30/2004-CE. The intention of legislature for providing the credit on input was that the said credit would be utilized for payment of Central Excise Duty on finished goods in order to reduce the cascading effect of duty. Thus, the double benefit to the unit i.e. nonpayment of Central Excise Duty on finished goods and encashment of accumulated credit of input used in the manufacture of exempted goods through the rebate of the duty is not permissible in terms of scheme of CENVAT credit particularly under provision of Rule 11 (3)(2) of CCR. 5.13. It is the say of the respondent that rebate under Rule 18 can only be granted of Excise Duty paid on the goods exported. It has relied on the judgment of Bombay High Court in case of Union of India vs. Rainbow Silks [2011 (274) ELT 510 (Bombay)] to urge further that the CENVAT credit balance available in the account was to lapse at the time of opting for complete exemption on their final product. The Page 17 of 34 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 22 20:52:40 IST 2023 C/SCA/9678/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2023 respondent unit has chosen not to adhere to the requirement of the Rules and continued to retain a large amount of such CENVAT credit. Therefore, it is open to the manufacturer to pay the duties through CENVAT credit account by debit entry. However, if any inadmissible CENVAT credit which should correctly have lapsed is continued to be retained and if such amount is utilized for the purpose of payment of the Central Excise Duty, it would mean that the appropriate duty has not been paid and the consequences of non-payment of duty were followed.
Gujarat High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S G Gokani - Full Document

Hindalco Industries Limited vs Bharuch on 21 June, 2023

Munjal Showa Ltd Vs. CCE , Delhi-IV - 2022 (382) ELT 145 (SC)  Munjal Showa Ltd Vs. CCE, Delhi - IV Faridabad - 2009 (246) ELT 18 (P&H)  CC (Preventive ) Vs. Aafloat Textile (I) P Ltd -2009 (235) ELT 587 (SC)  CCE, New Delhi Vs. Hari Chand Shri Gopal - 2010 (260) ELT 3(SC)  Motiram Tolaram VS. Union of India - 1999 (112) ELT 749 (SC)  CC vs. Presto Industries - 2001 ( 128 ) ELT 321 (SC)  Mysore Metal Industries VS. CC, Bombay - 1988 (36) ELT 369 (SC)  Union of India Vs. Rainbow Silks - 2011 (274) ELT 510 (Bom)  Fedco P Ltd Vs. S N Bilgrami - 1999 (110) ELT 92 (SC)  G L Metallica P Ltd Vs. CCE, Jaipur-I - 2010 (262) ELT 995 (Tri.Del)  CC, Kandla Vs. Essar Oil Ltd - 2004 (172) ELT 433 (SC)  Blue Blends (I) Ltd VS. CC, Mumbai - 2001 (136) ELT 411 (Tri.- Mum)  ICI India Ltd Vs. CC (Port), Calcutta - 2005 (184) ELT 339 (Cal)  ICI India ltd Vs. Commissioner - 2005 (187) ELT A31 (SC)
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1