M\/s Inox Air Products Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Visakhapatnam – GST
Central Excise
2018 (6) TMI 1408 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 21-5-2018
Appeals No. E\/30361 & 30363\/2018 – A\/30589-30590\/2018
Central Excise
Mr. M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
\nShri A. Vamsi Rajesh, Chartered Accountant, for the Appellant.
\nShri Dass Thavanam, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent.
\n[Order per: M.V. Ravindran]
\nThese two appeals are directed against Orders-in-Appeal No. VIZ-EXCUS-001-APP-177 & 178-17-18, dated 22.12.2017. Since both these appeals raised a common question of law, hence they are being disposed of by a common order.
\n2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
\n3.<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ame up before this Bench and Final Order dated A\/31276\/2017 dated 17.08.2017, the Bench recorded and reproduced the findings of the other case laws held in favour of the appellant and submits that subsequently also, in Final Order No. A\/31455-31460\/2017 dated 07.09.2017 and Final Order No. A\/30405\/2018 dated 08.02.2018, the appeals are allowed. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Inox Air Products Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Visakhapatnam – GSTCentral Excise2018 (6) TMI 1408 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMICESTAT HYDERABAD – ATDated:- 21-5-2018Appeals No. E\/30361 & 30363\/2018 – A\/30589-30590\/2018Central ExciseMr. M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri A. Vamsi Rajesh, Chartered Accountant, for the Appellant. Shri Dass Thavanam, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent. … Continue reading “M\/s Inox Air Products Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Visakhapatnam – GST”<\/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-12400","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12400","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=12400"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12400\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12400"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12400"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12400"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. Learned Departmental Representative submits that Division Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of M\/s I.B.P. Company Ltd., Vs. CCE & ST, Raipur [2016 (1) TMI 1313-CESTATNew Delhi] has taken a different view and following the decision in the case of Navbharat Explosive Co. Ltd., in an identical set of facts held that recovery of Modvat credit has to be undertaken under Rule 57(I) and the sam<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n