Next question needs to be considered is whether the demand for the period March 2003 to February 2007 can be enforced when the demand notice was issued on 14.9.2007. In the aforesaid case where the Honorable High Court observed that the in absence of time limit prescribed for recovery, a reasonable period, be applied for […]
Honble Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Courts gave the rulings that reversal of Cenvat credit will amount to not taking Cenvat credit and accordingly benefit of relevant exemption notifications was held to be available to such assessees who reverse Cenvat credit earlier taken.
From the evidences as recorded and analysed in the impugned order, the role of the Director has not been specifically discussed and brought out the fact that non-payment of duty was at his instance. In these circumstances, the personal penalty on the Director is unwarranted and accordingly set aside.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods, namely paper and paperboard falling Chapter Heading 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They have availed CENVAT credit of Rs.39,50,149/- on capital goods, procured on lease basis from one M/s B.G. India Energy Services Pvt. Ltd
I find that an identical issue in respect of the capital goods received for the manufacturing of final products which were exempted, was being heard and the eligibility for availing the credit was decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Spenta International Ltd. v. CCE 2007 (216) ELT 133 (Tri. – Mum.). The ratio of the said judgment is clearly recorded in paragraph 10, which is reproduced as under :-
Once partnership firm penalized, separate penalty not imposable upon partner of the firm because the partner is not a separate legal entity as there is no difference between the partner and the partnership firm.
In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana vs DRP Malleables Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal held that Chartered Accountant Service is specifically covered under the scope of input service and the assessee is eligible for availing credit.
It is stated that all the operations and activities at the factory came to standstill. There was closure notice and the factory was closed. It is, therefore, impossible for the petitioner to have been aware of an order stated to be pasted on its factory gate.
Assessees were engaged in the manufacture of Gas Compressor package, classifiable under Sub-heading No.8414.86 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They supplied Gas Compressors to M/s Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd (ONGC) on the basis of the tenders
Appellant submitted the reconciliation statement in respect of the shortage of the goods in their factory against which the demand was raised. It is seen from the impugned order that the authorities below has mainly proceeded on the basis of various statements and ignored the evidences placed by the Appellant.
