M\/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. Versus GST, Bhopal
Central Excise
2018 (3) TMI 1124 – CESTAT, NEW DELHI – 2018 (363) E.L.T. 1085 (Tri. – Del.)
CESTAT, NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 8-3-2018
Appeal No. E\/50179\/2018-SM – Final Order No. 50876\/2018
Central Excise
Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
\nShri B.L. Narasimhan, Advocate – for the appellant
\nShri G.R. Singh, D.R. – for the respondent
\nPer Ashok Jindal:
\nThe appellant is in appeal against the impugned order for denial of Cenvat credit on CVD paid by the appellant on imported coal.
\n2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of aluminium ingots and aluminium billets. They were availing Cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs and capital good<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n per Cenvat Credit Rules 3(1) proviso, the appellant is not entitled to avail Cenvat credit. In these set of facts, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant for the period June 2012 to December 2012 on 5.12.2016 by invoking extended period of limitation to deny Cenvat credit to the appellant. The matter was adjudicated, Cenvat credit was denied. Against the said order, the appellant is before me. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n is entitled to avail Cenvat credit. The demand has been raised due to misunderstanding of the Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. He also agitated that it is an issue of applying wrongly provisions of the notification. In that circumstances, the extended period is not invocable. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. Versus GST, BhopalCentral Excise2018 (3) TMI 1124 – CESTAT, NEW DELHI – 2018 (363) E.L.T. 1085 (Tri. – Del.)CESTAT, NEW DELHI – ATDated:- 8-3-2018Appeal No. E\/50179\/2018-SM – Final Order No. 50876\/2018Central ExciseMr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Advocate – for the appellant Shri G.R. Singh, D.R. – for the … Continue reading “M\/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. Versus GST, Bhopal”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11067","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11067","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11067"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11067\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11067"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11067"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11067"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. The ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that Notification No. 12\/2012-CE dated 17.3.2012 applicable to domestically manufactured goods and Notification No. 12\/2012-Cus. dated 17.3.2012 for imported coal. In both the cases, assessee is required to pay duty @ 1%. In case of imported coal, appellant is required to pay CV<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions.
\n5. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, I find that the sole reason to deny Cenvat credit to the appellant is that the authorities below has taken into consideration Notification No. 12\/2012-CE dated 17.3.2012. The authorities below have not considering the Notification No. 12\/2012-Cus. dated 17.3.2012. If same is taken into consideration and duty paid under the said notification, t<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n